government has stretched jurisdiction beyond the breaking point under the government's theory a fraud perpetrated anywhere in the world would confer federal jurisdiction as long as the proceeds or alternately wire transferred into the united states you know that's called foreign commerce or i don't think that that broader reading was intended by congress when they when i used the term in foreign commerce in the wire fraud statute and nor have i found any cases that support as broad a reading as the government's admits in this case what we have here obviously is the victims were foreign nationals no question about that the fraudulent inducement took place and foreign territory and was one case in england in the other two cases in intended and it's broader than any case authority that i'm aware of in and again what my main point is if if this court accept the government's theory in this case it just seems to me that opens the floodgates to those federal cour that a fraud committed anywhere in the in the world would be subject to u s jurisdiction if the funds were alternately will to land in the banking institution in the united states i don't i don't believe that's what was intended i don't believe the case law supports that argument that we have a situation where any again that if the the as a result of representations that the jury found or obviously fraudulent or in court and their verdict i think we understand your argument on the points for us what about the second argument that you but i'm suggesting what i argue in the lower court to this record also was that the act of simply transferring the money into the united states were incidental acts the causative acts that is the the well i'm so i don't i mean you're saying i'm sorry i'm quite follow that if it's if it's drawn on a london bank and it's cast in san francisco i'm back to square one so that i don't see how you can defeat liability here just because you can analogize to a check rather than in a wire the fund is incidental act that's what i was trying to respond the question it's not a interval part of the execution of the wire fraud statute i mean in a case many wire fraud cases discord well where involved the telephone listener call somebody on the telephone and induces them to part with their money that's a clear wire fraud situation that in that particular setting the wire the use of the wires were in the  intro part of the execution of the fraud that's not what we have here the fraud occurred overseas the money through rather circuitous route as i mentioned earlier ultimately ends up in the united states i don't believe that that alone is sufficient for it to kick in for jurisdiction otherwise it seems to me that there's no limits to jurisdiction ok and i think that the supreme court in recent years in the context of state federal relations says that there are limits to federal jurisdiction this doesn't involve a different issue with this regarding international relations rather than state federal but i think there are limitations and i'm submitting under the government's theory if you look at it so they basically say there are no limitations so long as the funds end up here and when we hear from the government you have two and a half minutes thank  wires in this case were used in the execution of the fraud and i have two points to make on that one is he found it as just wrong on the record here if you take the wires at issue here and there are there are a number of wires they break down into three types a one type involves proceeds coming into this country and with respect to  it's the posited in spain by the family but also by a friend trusted by the victim and then it's moved on to this country that's a wiring  execution of the scheme to the fraud for a couple of reasons for one thing it finally transfers the proceeds to the furnace exclusive control and at the firm and it also transfer of the proceeds to a worldwide reputable institution chase me main manhattan bank and we alleged in our own indictment and it's part of the record that the founded in this case wanted those funds  substantial banks like chasse manhattan so we could entice other investors the second kind of proceeds that the second kind of wiring we have in this case  that and even though we think the record supports it here and secondly this is after the factual factual record has been shaped and this was done on the agreed statement of facts where the issue was the issue election so for those reasons i urge you to reject the the president's argument as to jurisdiction there are three points i want to make make them very quickly i think i'll just isn't consistent with international law now let me turn to that first point the offenses occurred here because each and every count of conviction whether you're talking about interstate transmission of stolen funs or the use of the wires involved a wire transfer orthodox either originating in this country or ending in this country of wire fraud they used the wires in the case of the transmission statute it's the transmission of the stolen funds and i refer you to the cases in our  whether or not congress has expressed its intent to exercise your stiction when you have flyers beginning around the united states i refer you to the phrase foreign commerce i think there's a plain language there suggests that that's exactly what it's designed to apply to and it's not designed to apply to every offense in the world we're just talking in this case about wires terminating originating here in the united states the hill case in our brief where this court recently looked at the words foreign commerce and indicated these in the talents and in the whole case indicated that final point i don't think this is necessary because congressional intent in my mind is conclusive here but the case is also referred to the fact that courts also look at whether or not the  occurs in the country where the where that jurisdiction is based upon the place where the offense was committed and the offenses in this case were committed in this country the second basis of international jurisdiction is the objective territorial basis of purest fiction which involves conferring jurisdiction where you have an act effects are those that relate they're more intangible but they're still real these these transactions in dus stolen money to our for our united states capital to reserve and your honor i want to emphasize that there's a presumption against extraterritoriality unless the statute is explicitly provides a what is this court  transferred into the united states that are arcane krajan li from abroad that that confers federal jurisdiction they could have simply said so they could have said use of the mails in any way that's not what happened now in the cases that recited by the government in their briefs and the cases that relied on by the district court all involve either an act committed in the united states or where there was a victim that was a united states citizen either individually or institution really the goldberg case which you cited in my opening brief which is one of the cases relied upon by the district court in that particular case it was a wire transfer from canada to the bahamas you know what no money came into the u s yet the third circuit found jurisdiction and the simple reason was that mr goldberg a defendant apparently a clever fellow while he was in state prison in pennsylvania made a phone call to the bank in canada transferring the funds to the bahamas in addition to that the victim of that particular case was an american insurance company so the court held that even though money has never entered the u s it was transferred from canada  mr goldberg the defendant perpetrated the fraud when he made the phone call while on in the united states and secondly there was an american victim that's not what we have here the frauds were not perpetrated in the united states and there was no american victim