apart from the government agents observation that at least in part it was a bank methods approach there's nothing that appears to deposits method of proof that testimony is on rebutted the matter came up when the defense expert testified he testified that that the government actually to be precise government experts said he used a hybrid method which relied  lead offered second there were if you review the government experts testimony he testified about again at length at some length about how generous he was in removing certain consistently for all of us but he certainly did that for nine hundred ninety eight and it's clear that the that is the type of calculation that is required by the bank deposit method but not by a specific items nothing in fact in a specific items nothing testimony in a broad term what's what's the problem and what the evidence here was that there's all this money pouring into the accounts as to some of them there's a question as to whether these guess from the  japanese relatives and so forth and there's a lot of evidence about that this is not what i had understood a more indirect method to be where you look at how much money the guy is spending in a lavish lifestyle and so forth and you and here you've got some specific items in the form of bank deposits and i think the terminology got at least some people confused the legal problem is the instructions to the jury is it sufficiently clear what has to be established and what is that the jury couldn't have understood from the instructions they were given that made a difference so let me answer that question in two parts first of all there was a lot in fact a lot of indirect evidence of the type you would see in a bank deposit method in fact there was a lot of evidence that you would normally associate with a cash expenditures method the government had mr prantera is living a lavish lifestyle presented evidence of the homes the amount of money that was paid  mortgage payments for example it offered photographs of the tipper on house so there was this type of indirect method of proof now as far as what the jury didn't understand there was evidence from the defense expert of capital we can't tell what it is and in fact that is what is significant here is that the jury under under the form of persons the government chose again the defense doesn't select the method of proof it's up to the government but capturing gains that were actually obtained in earlier years as repatriation as you say well then you would expect to find some capital gains reported in previous years but it was reporting capital gains in previous years because if i hadn't paid taxes in ten years now some of this really spins around and stares at the defendant the one person who knows what that money or should know what that money is for is the defendant of course he doesn't have to testify but i have a hard time saying the jury couldn't figure out was going on because of these theoretical possibilities that reported when he gives us the evidence that's the record i look at and it looks to me like this is what previously i've seen described the specific items not the bank deposit it's the label it is attached to it that appears to be the problem again though your honor i don't think it's that they didn't use the bank deposits nothing i think it's that they didn't use it correctly the record shows that he made the calculation setter and i don't mean to argue with the court but that the the record shows that the that he  the calculation that it required some of the calculations to card by the bank deposits not that not all and i agree you know he he looked at the wire transfer but he also made other calculations that are not required by  i just want to point out one other thing on the prejudiced side the other thing to consider is that the government had considerable evidence that the government had tended to show that you know  the planet they used all these prior statements these used a lot of things that tend to prejudice the jury gets to defend it now they had a right to bring in that evidence but in a case like that is even more important than normal to have an adequate explanatory instruction the government did not have direct evidence of what this money was and it's important to the jury to understand that the the method of proof is dependent on  please the court my name is jay while obviously represent the united states in this manner with all due respect to revenue agent charles toner who was our summary witness in this case who was so whose sole function in the case was simply to summarize all the very specific items he was not asked to upon as to whether or not was income or not he recognized that was a decision for the jury and the judge so instructed was simply wrong when he said in response to a question on cross examination that this was a bank deposits method of case it was not in all the parties i believe the record reflect recognize that when the fence counsel who judge the district judge later determine john youngest on the defense council with was at sentencing he recognized the very experienced criminal tax litigator both and for the government and and in defense practice nobody ever requested a jury instruction  on the bank deposits method no mention of it was ever made in closing argument or in opening statements and in fact the the defendant's summary witness testified in a great deal about what a bank deposits method was against testified that they didn't do it in this case and we wrecked we didn't do it this was a very this was a civic items cases i think that your honour's of have recognized that the defendant mr bryant in this case told us early on in this case from the moment that he was first examined by the i r s that the fact the reason i have not filed not my file not paid taxes in ten years as my rich in laws in japan have provided my wife and i substantial gifts these are the gifts and what we did in the case as indicated by our government summary exhibits which are in your record a two eleven three i think it's two sixteen to twenty six very expensive we went to every one of the entities which he says were associated with his in laws and then showed exactly that in fact these monies came in where they went some of which went to the defendant mr bronte's parents and then we claim laundered through him  we showed exactly where the money came from where it went in some instances how it was used and so this was a specific items case this was not specific this was not a bank deposits was not air for the district judge to give an instruction that no one asked him to give the structures adequately describe what the jury had to do in this case with respect to the conditions of supervised release these were not the district judge didn't prohibit the defendant from didn't prohibit the defendant from getting new lines of credit or getting a job involving some five usury capacity he simply the judge simply or you've got to get the permission from the probation officer first to do that and in this case he owes millions of dollars in unpaid taxes i think it's responsible for the probation officer to to regulate and maintain his ability to borrow money if he's going to borrow money how to use that money to pay the taxes and with respect to his five year responsibilities he accordingly was an investment advisor i think it's responsible not of abuse of discretion of the district judge to require the probation we don't have anything about dishonesty with respect to the finish area responsibility to investors in a fund correct i agree with the why is this a related question i only fall back on the situation that it's the probation officer  he did and he goes on to talk about him the defendant apparently thinking he was smarter than the government agents trying to escape tax liability through a rather sophisticated scheme i think the public we need to keep a tight rein on wrong and you shouldn't consider it that's a hard sell again the government's expert witness and he was qualified as an expert whether or not so much and he actually did a pile on income albion on cross examination   on the condition of supervised release to the governor's to just doing that because the probation officer has the discretion to say yes or no that's enough and this is that's not correct first of all that decision is