morning all our first case very human to this morning is brant versus horseshoe him may please the court good morning my name is george hostilities and i'm here today on behalf of william brandt the plan administrator of equipment acquisition resources or they are the plaintiff in the appellant in this case this course should this court should reverse the summary judgment in favor of the defendant where she could see no ham in this case should go to a jury the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to her shoe casino specifically in its finding that horseshoe had a complete defense to its receipt of six point seven million dollars in fraudulent we transferred e a a our funds pursuant to eleven u s c five fifty be without any fact question for the jury in doing so district court committed reversible error in four ways first the district district court incorrectly found that the word transfer for section five fifty eight purposes is only the transfer from the debtor in this case a r to the initial transferee in this case sheldon player and don will refer to collectively as player this fundamentally misinterprets the word transfer in the bankruptcy code the transfer for purposes of five fifty was the transfer from e a are ultimately to horseshoe indirectly through player a moral second the district court failed to consider good faith and without knowledge of the void ability of the transfer of voided even though section five fifty b lays them out as separate pro of the section five fifty b defense i hope you'll explain the difference to us as you go along that's my plan for it and i can do so now if you go ahead now to line what you wanted ok third the district court erroneous lee found the horse you had to have been able to discover the ponzi like fraud scheme going on at e a are in order to have the knowledge of the board ability of the transfer overweighted the red flags in this case which are clear and undisputed in the record show that horseshoe had plenty of notice that the funds that sheldon player was paying to the casino to pay off his markers for his personal gambling debts were coming from the business e a are that was enough to raise a question of fact as to whether or not those transfers could be voidable and last there was a motion to compel that we filed which was ultimately denied by the court that is subject to a protective order in the briefing covers that but the way that the trial judge handled  that motion to compel it was also a personal on that point are we going for the did you ever raise any objection in the district court to the way it was handled so the answer to your question your honor is yes i believe what what happened in the district court was we appeared for the present of that motion to compel we explained to the trial judge what was going on in the trial judge cleared the court everybody left other than counsel for horseshoe and i we went through what the issue was he then asked me to leave the courtroom i left the court i didn't object to that but what happened thereafter i never had the opportunity to object to what these if you ever register an objection we know there are situations where judges need to handle some kinds of discovery issues ex party and in camera it happens did you register an objection on the record no ok and what i need to know and you and the reason that but well ok we'll cover that later because that's not really the thrust of why this should be reversed the reason that this case should be reversed to the other arguments that presented to you so let me go forward first the district court erred in finding that a transfer is just the transfer from  to player the transfer for purposes of this case is the transfer that ultimately ended up in the hands or the transfers that ultimately ended up in the hands of horseshoe casino eight point two million dollars worth in a span of two years section one o one fifty four of the bankruptcy code defines the word transfer transfer for bankruptcy purposes is quote each mode direct or indirect absolute or conditional voluntary or involuntary of disposing of or parting with property the district court's view on what the transfer of weighted was here is very very limited the reality is that here the transfer and we have evidence of this because we had a tracing expert the transfers here are to player to horseshoe almost immediately to the tune of six point seven million dollars and so when the court is considering whether or not horseshoe had knowledge of the void ability of the transfer it has to look at not the i really i'm having trouble with this idea that it a business that deals with a human being has to be investigating the solvency of that human beings employer and that's not our argument and that's where the district court why is that why not that's why does it not have to investigate what's lawful save now doesn't have to investigate the solve and see the issue is what knowledge or sue had again the knowledge of the void ability of the transfer now what does knowledge of the void ability of the transfer mean that's really i think the crux of your question knowledge the void ability of the transfer doesn't go to the financial state of the debtor if that were the case then no subsequent transferee would ever be be liable on a transfer like this and although it's not quite true it's a heavy burd but go ahead agree that that's what you're trying to do i think that's what you're trying to do with the issue the issue for knowledge of the void ability of the transfer is whether or not there's knowledge that the money came from the debtor so horseshoe is doing business with mr player but the money that mr player is using to pay off his debts is not coming from mr player the money was coming from e a r and horse you had lots of notice that the money was coming from from  r let me give you some exam if i go to a casino the casinos going to know my money is coming from the united states treasury so what the casino is going to know that your money may be coming from you if you go to the casino you get a credit line you tell the casino that you have four hundred thousand and you game away but ok so this is all theoretical for all  right in twenty or thirty thousand dollars but what you had here is sheldon player going to worship saying my income is four hundred thousand dollars a year and i'd like a line of credit for twenty five thousand dollars in the course of the next eighteen months his credit limit was raised to four hundred fifty thousand dollars and he made transfers in twenty four months of a point two million dollars now how is it that somebody who has an income of four hundred thousand dollars is transferring eight point two million in two years horseshoe had some knowledge of the bonded financial case which is the leading case on dominion and control in the leading case on section five fifty b says that there are some facts which indelibly lead to the to the conclusion that there are other facts and there are other facts here which which told horseshoe which showed or sure that the money was i'm from e r well different and then even if that was true i mean assume they should have done some desiccation are i mean none of the equipment's creditors financial advisors or outside accountants detect the fraud and it took the forensic accountants three months to detect there was a fraud there but the investigation that horseshoe should have done was not an investigation into our the investigation the floor should have done was an investigation into where the money came from all would have had to do is say hey sheldon can you bring us your bank statements because we know you're writing us checks out of your bank accounts and what with those bank statements have shown they would have shown transfers into his bank account for me are in the amount of hundreds of thousands of dollars and then the next day out of his bank account to sheldon that i'm sorry to horseshoe that's the kind of notice which which tells horseshoe that the money is coming from v a r the transfers could be voidable but that's full access to eat a r s books couldn't find it for three months or she doesn't have to know that they are is insolvent or she doesn't know that they are has to be on the edge of filing for bankruptcy or she doesn't have to know r is a ponzi scheme or is a fraud all horseshoe has to know is that if the money is coming from somewhere other than its customer there's the potential that that money is avoidable because he's taking money out of the company that he should be taking out of the company well we're going to know the company that you're going to give you're jumping past the logical obstacles to what you're saying the logical obstacle you avoid the need to show knowledge or at least the ability to figure out the a are was insolvent because otherwise those transfers are invalid and you don't know if it's insolvent unless you understand the fraud in the underlying business which was very hard to figure out that puts you know in our view an incredibly onerous burden on any trustee who's trying wait a minute you want to talk about burdens you're talking you represent the creditors who chose to do business with mr player in his business right yes they chose to do business with a crook right it in no it was a crook but he was you know they  crook or shoot didn't know he was a crook we had they thought he was a fishy gambler with a mirror on notice of that but they didn't know he was stealing money from you are well i would argue that actually they did they knew that he was stealing money from a r and they knew that he was a crook and how did they really get that on the record i get that on this record because your shoe has internal controls which identify certain activities that are indicative of criminal activity because remember we're not dealing with the car dealer that's discussed in the bonded case where there's a concern that someone walks into a car dealership buys a car and then the car dealer shouldn't be mulcted is the word that the that the bonded case use uses for that for that money this is a casino which is highly regulated and as our experts pointed out and it is in this record is a is a an industry where criminal elements live and thrive and so it is highly regulated and so that's part of  credit chips and determined that player malone and excellent credit you know if they you know all the pain is came for a long counts and and for suit investigating that they would have determined that the account was a personal account so i responded that in a couple ways first the investigations that they did showed that both player and malone ride on their credit applications because those two individuals indicated that they had approximately four hundred ninety thousand dollars of debt when the credit check that was run the next day by the casinos showed that actually they had six times that as far as the money coming from personal accounts there was a big issue made in the district court decision with regard to one account from which two checks came in it was the charter one nine eight zero eight account and the district court concluded that because the charter one nine eight zero eight account was a personal account to donna malone even though it said donna malone e a are that it was a personal account horseshoes own the records say charter one nine eight zero eight is a business account do not accept so whether or not that account was actually a personal account of donna malone's or any our account doesn't matter what matters is that horse thought it was a business account and horseshoe took money from that account yes what is a reference account so at some point so let me go back and give you a little bit of facts here mr player provided when he applied for credit and when horseshoe checked on his on his the status of his checking accounts he provided a checking account and the reason he provided a checking account to the casino is that and i only learned this through this case the process of taking out markers from a casino is essentially go to the casino you sit down if you have a line of credit there you say i want twenty thousand dollars worth of chips if you sign a piece of paper which is a check against your account because you've given the casino access to your account and told them what the account is the casino then takes that piece of paper and it holds it for thirty days and if the if the chips that are borrowed are not paid back in the thirty days the casino can go and deposit that check into into its account what happened here was missed when when the casino checked mr player's personal checking account it showed that he had balances between ten and fifty thousand dollars what's the problem at the time that he did that it had extended him credit of four hundred fifty thousand dollars and up to this trip only of five hundred twenty thousand dollars so what did horseshoes want it wanted a reference account it wanted to know what other accounts were out there and what did player give them an e a our account that was the reference account further evidence that her shoes knew that the money here was coming from a r and not coming from sheldon player he didn't give them a second checking account she didn't give them an account with an investment with any investments or anything like that he gave them and each day our account so when you talk about what notice were shoe had that the transfers here were boarded voidable sheldon saying to them in effect hey look if i don't have enough money in my checking account i've got this corporate account that i can take money out of what better evidence of what ability transfer from equipment so of course you can you still prevail on another theory absolutely because there is no question there's nothing in this record to contravene the fact that the transfers here were avoidable transfers of  assets are tracing expert showed it or shouldn't even challenge it on summary judgment all that's before you is whether or not summary judgment was appropriate on the question of whether or she took in good faith and without knowledge now i know  your honor wanted me to distinguish between the two and i'm into my rebuttal time but i think it's worthwhile to make the point now before i sit down we talked about knowledge or shoe had knowledge player walked with chips player past chips those are both indicative of structuring player gambled far more than he had his checking accounts but let's talk about what good faith means good faith in the law generally deals with commercial reasonableness so the question is did horse shoe good faith and without knowledge of the void ability of the transfer of two separate elements they both hinge on knowledge but one i think good faith goes to the question of what a a reasonable casino in a similar situation would have done and our expert witnesses are very very clear professor rosen mr sethi obit or she should have stopped doing business with this guy but they continued to take his money they continued to want to take his money because he was one of the biggest players in the casino and by doing that they ran the risk that they were going to that the funds could be recovered from them they didn't care where the money came from or she wanted the money from this guy this is hammond indiana this is not las vegas eight point two million dollars in twenty four months is a lot of money for this casino so they bury their heads in the and and didn't care about any of this i just have one question i'm sure to reply brief that footnote three where you talk about the judgment that was recovered in the amount eighteen million dollars  so have you recovered the money you're seeking now you say it really they're not an issue in this appeal is it the judgment but no payment or does the footnote concern transactions that were not subsequently transferred to horse shoe so those are the answer questions we have not recovered the money as if that's the short answer to the question andy's this so now relates to the eighteen million this amount may be part of the eighteen million but we haven't we haven't recovered any of the eighteen million i'm a judgment that we got against mr player so we're seeking it from wherever we can get it ok thank you may please the court the standard that mr brandt has just articulated that a party is liable as a subsequent transferee whenever you know that the money came from some other person or entity would turn section five fifty b one on its head for most of us except for a small class of independently wealthy individuals who don't have to work our money comes from some other place we have an employer we have a job we have a business from which we earn our income knowing that the party is using money that they've received from their employer is not a reason to find that they had knowledge of the void ability of the church of the transfer if their employer subsequently goes bankrupt instead with this court held in bonded financial the some analysts council says the leading case in section five fifty in five fifty b one is that we need to look to see whether they had knowledge of the void ability of the transfer that was made by the debtor to the initial transferee the facts and bonded are very nearly identical to the facts in this case and in fact they're probably far worse for the defendant in that case than they are here in that case the bank received the check from the debtor to the individual it got actually received the check and it was told to deposit the check in the individual's account so they knew that a two hundred thousand dollars check was being issued to that individual and the bank put it in his account the individual then instructed the bank to take the money and apply it to a personal loan and the court held that there are limits on the pursuit of financial fraudulent transfers and it didn't allow for the recovery against the bank in the reason why it did that because it concluded that the bank had no reason to know that the company was in solvent it looked at whether and what the banks knew about the financial peril that the debtor was in and found it did not have any knowledge and then it looked and said is there any reason to believe or know that there was some fraudulent activity that was taking place at the debtor to cause it to make fraudulent transfers to its principal and the court found that there was no such knowledge but that even if there were had there been an investigation just like the district court judge did here had there been an investigation there would not have been anything that would have been found out what they would have found out was that the check was issued by the corporation and authorized by the controller of the corporation here the facts are virtually the same v a r was a stranger to horseshoe hammond horseshoe hammond had no business dealings with a our it was not a creditor of e a are the payments came from mr player and miss malone and they came from their personal this malone so when she and her husband mr player set up a our originally it was not a corporation and they operated it out of their home and they set up she set up a personal bank account and they titled that count doing business a eventually they incorporate b r a they move it out of the home and that had been many years earlier she had not use that account for business purposes in many years and it had never been owned by a are the corporate debt or the entity that is the debtor here and so what the district court found because the argument they made below about that account was a little bit differently different they claim that was a transfer from the debtor and the court rejected that the district court found that no that wasn't the debtors account it was never owned by the debtor and so hor she was not the initial transferee it could claim the benefit of a good faith defense under five fifty b one is a subsequent transferee and the court held that had invested gaited that account further it would have been told by ms malone as mr brand himself argued in litigation he had with miss malone that this was a personal account she had used it in many many years for the business and is where her salary and other funds that she received were deposited so it was not a business account could you yes in his credit application he gave a reference of a and that account that he didn't put up that account as backing for the markers it never was an account from which horse you could draw should mr player have failed to resources he's a business owner he provides a credit application that shows he owns this business he in this mall alone and that he has other rental properties from which he gets income and that he's a very wealthy individual that's what he represents his credit reports check that out in fact until the very end mr player ms malone always pay their debts on time they did what they were supposed to do which is they pay their debts when they were due there was only just one or two instances where they were late in the casino called them on it and they made good on the debt there was no reason to believe there's this discussion here in the presentation about well what is it they had to know about e a are typically with a fraudulent transfer you either know that the debt or e a a are was insolvent was in some financial peril as the court put it in bonded financial or you know that there was some fraud afoot at the debtor that is causing it to make fraudulent transfers here mr branscum tension is that the reason why the payments mr player ms malone received were fraudulent transfers is because there was a fraud that because if they are wasn't gaged in and equipment leasing scheme where it was double and triple pledging collateral to various banks that every payment they received a fraudulent transfer so the thing we needed to know about was whether or not there was any indication of fraud at e a our and we had no knowledge of that and no knowledge of any facts that would put us on inquiry notice of that and that's why the district court judge granted summary judgment or no one about his counsel indicated there were misrepresentations that they made on the documents the one misrepresentation that he points to is mr player and his initial credit application indicates he has four hundred thousand dollars of mortgage debt when the credit report that horseshoe ran showed that he had two million dollars of mortgage debt and the credit policy  judgment record is a credit policy approved by the state of indiana and it actually contemplates that situation if there are in accuracies in the credit application which is not uncommon that does happen people sometimes do understate their liabilities or mistake them make a mistake about them the casino has the discretion based upon what it determines from the credit check payment histories that they can see that that individual makes to other parties with their credit rating is to extend credit anyway and so when they extend a small amount of credit twenty five thousand dollars notwithstanding that discrepancy in the liabilities they updated the credit check every step along the way and each time it came back that he was sufficiently hadn't sufficiently good credit rating to continue to have credit extended to him but the important point about all of these things that he talks about about mr player's conduct is that none of this is information about the de are and that's what's pertinent under the statute counsel points to the broad definition of transfer yes the definition of transfer is broadly defined but if you look at five forty eight and how it in a place with section five fifty what is important is that the transfer is made by the debtor if you start with five forty eight which is the provision that allows mr brandt here to avoid a fraudulent transfer the stat statute uses the language that the transfer is made by the debtor what it says is if the debtor voluntarily or involuntary plea made such transfer incurred such obligation with an actual intent to hinder delay or defraud creditors we only of the way we may define transfers broadly but it's limited by the fact that the debtor is the one under five forty eight that has to make the transfer and then you move over to section five fifty which is the recovery provision and that provision is entitled liability of transfer of avoided transfer the avoided transfer is the transfer made by the debtor under section five forty eight and the text of five fifty carries through with the title that's given in that particular provision and it talks about the fact and in five fifty a that except as otherwise provided in the section to the extent that a transfer is avoided under and it lists all the various avoidance provisions including five forty eight the trustee may recover for the benefit of the estate the property transferred so we're looking at what the debtor transfers over to the initial transferee that's the avoided transfer that's what five fifty b one is referring to when it talks about knowledge of the void ability of the transfer of voided the only transfer that can be avoided is the transfer that is made by the debtor over to the initial transferee and that's what the court did in banded financial when it looked at what the bank knew it looked at what the bank knew about the financial peril at the debtor was the debtor insolvent was the debtor engaged in some fraud when it transferred that two hundred thousand dollars check into the account of its principal the same issue as present here what did horseshoe hammond know about e a are when it made these payments over to mr player and mrs malone and none of the things that they talk about the red flags that they talk about in their brief have anything to do with e a hours solvency or insolvency or the fraud that occurred there none of those things in their own experts their gaming experts testified that none of that would have put a casino on notice that there was some problem at e a are they created a fraudulent transfer and if we look just briefly looking at those things there's a lot made about all this in the suspicious activity but a lot of the things that they point to really there wasn't much support in the record the district court judge credited it and said let's look and see what would happen if we investigated and gave them the benefit of the doubt there but really they didn't even shouldn't even have gotten at this passing ships all that means is that you go to the casino with someone else and you let them use some of your chips it's not illegal activity every gaming expert said it was not illegal activity it's only a problem if you hide the fact that you're doing it and when your party that you gave the chips to goes to cash then they try to contend that they didn't get them from you then it can be evidence of structuring there's no evidence in the record that that's what mr player did hear the testimony they cite from mr le bron in their brief that is somewhat not complete in the sense that mr le bron went on to testify that he never saw mr player pass and each ups and the only way he even said that he had heard that was because an employee mentioned it to him and he didn't know which employee had mentioned to him or when so there's really no foundation for that walking with chips that's taking the chips home with you at night these chips are capable of being used any place other than pushing him and you can't take them to another casino or to bad a you can get money for them if you're ever going to turn them back into cash you got to do that horseshoe hammond so are there six million dollars worth of chips missing no there was not your honor because their expert is a district court judge notes in his opinion their expert did that calculation looking only at the critic cash transaction reports that go to the government whenever there's a cash transaction over ten thousand dollars so it missed every single time he turned in chips and an amount under ten thousand dollars it's an incomplete analysis for any missing i'm not sure i know the answer to that your honor there probably are some missing because for example people at casinos give tips to the people that somebody brings you something to eat or to drink it's not uncommon to get a chip or to the to the pate you know to the waitress or whoever that serves you and so you can have missing chips there's nothing in our records nothing that was produced nothing in the summary judgment record that suggests that there's some massive amount of missing chips here what you have is an incomplete analysis by an expert who didn't consider everything and the district court judge didn't credit it i assume a casino tries to keep track of the those outstanding chips or liabilities for them yes they try to keep track of the chips they want to know where their chips are get if you've got millions of dollars outstanding somewhere that's going to him pretty significant impact on your bottom lines report i don't know that that would have a significant impact on their bottom line but it would be something that would be noted in the record there is nothing in the records of horseshoe ham and i can't tell you exactly how many chips were missing over the you know two plus for four years that he played at the casino what i can tell you is there's nothing in the records that indicate that he is missing ships in any kind of significant amount to really in any kind of amount that was an incomplete analysis it really was a red herring and the district court judge didn't credit it because it was obviously incomplete on its face because there were many instances where he would have cashed in ships that were less than ten thousand dollars probably more so than when he cashed it and it was over ten thousand dollars  so these things really are about mr player they're not about e a are and so they really aren't relevant but the real point of the court's decision was that if you had investigated here what would you have found you would have found had you gotten audited financial statements for a are you would have seen that this was a very solvent business public accounting firms had reported that they had substantial equity substantial shareholder equity in excess of forty million dollars of shareholder equity substantial value on their assets that they were earning and making a very good profit in that business had you asked for some type of an accountant financial statement for the individuals mr player in this malone there were compiled statements by the same public accounting firm showing them to have very substantial net worth in excess of thirty million dollars consistent with what they put on their credit application that in addition to working at e a are they owned a number of rental properties one from which they would have received income and the like you would have looked and you would have seen a r scratch it or a list had you asked to find out who was doing business with them and you would have seen large companies like i b m hewlett packard fifth third bank city corp u s bancorp all of these parties were financing the equipment leases that the a r was was vending and none of them were saying that was a fraud they were all doing business with mr player's company a are without question these creditors had the right in their loan documents to look at the underlying books and records and didn't see anything and then you have the whole situation where mr player brings them in to try to convince the creditors to enter into forbearance agreements their their form july until the end of september they have a meeting with all the creditors where they say they've had access to all the books or she was not invited to this meeting doesn't know anything about it but at this meeting undisputed f b i says i've got access to the books they don't report the fraud they don't actually even uncover that there is a problem until a week or so later and then it doesn't become public really until the bankruptcy is filed and it becomes clear that there was a fraud here and at that point mr player missing a loan ha stopped paying for shoe for several months and so there never was a point where that information was known publicly where they could have acted on it and stop doing business with them on the final point of the due process point yes that the situation was waived there was no objection made at the hearing and we would point out that there's really no prejudice here the district court judge adopted the legal standard advanced by mr brandt that the only thing that was not producible were suspicious activity reports themselves and documents prepared solely for the purpose of creating the suspicious activity report the court then got the factual information under seal that's the only way you could get it consistent with the act and denied the motion one of two things was determined either there were documents but they only fell under the restricted categories or there were no documents he wasn't prejudice it's not as if he was denied access to those things that the district court said could be produced documents prepared in the ordinary course of business and we infected produce substantial backing and so we would urge that the court affirm and reject the argument that there was any due process violation here and we would also urge the court to affirm on the summary judgment under section five yes tell me of the red flags which one would you say is the strongest indication so harshly of corporate malfeasance of corporate the walking with the chips obviously may or may not be i mean it shows he's an erratic gambler right it does so well he's not a gambler there's not enough right that doesn't equal notice of corporate the right i would say it does and i'll tell you why there and if i may let me give you two red flags that i think are indicative of corporate malfeasance one is the sheer volume of the transfers here  point two million dollars when a horseshoe has a reference account from e a are and knows the player doesn't have enough money to cover all of this gambling debt the fact that money can simply flow from the take money out as long as it's solvent right maybe he were a cheat if this is a guy who reported four hundred thousand dollars of income and wrote forty eight checks in excess of one hundred thousand dollars a year well look he's he owns the company he gets to decide what money stays in the company putting aside all the fraud ok which you say you know but which apparently nobody knew about but in that situation you've got a profitable company in the owner gets to decide how much he takes out in salary and how much stays in the business and that's between him and the i r s right no it's not between him and the i r s only because if a casino which has been doing business with this guy for a long time knows that he's structuring knows that he's doing things which are which are indicative of federal crimes continues to take continues to accept payments from him that are in excess of what he makes and it knows the money's coming from the company that's indicative of corporate mal investigate one is a warning that a particular customer might be wondering money or she had that this idea that well we're not sure if six million dollars in chips disappeared is malarkey or should track to this gu play and attractors play through his gaming card because he wanted the rewards that came with losing all this money at the casino where she was gaming card reports show that he lost one point nine million dollars in two thousand and seven two thousand in two thousand and nine if he's losing one point nine million dollars why is he writing eight point two million dollars of checks it's because he's laundering money through the casino they had knowledge of it mr setio our expert went through horseshoes only records to determine independent of that that portion that six million dollars in chips disappeared so the district court says on the one hand if the casino has evidence that there's money laundering going on and it's casino that can be that can be something worth noting and that could be something which would give rise to consume casino when there was money laundering or not here number two the receipt of a corporate check as i've indicated to you or she thought it was getting corporate checks from me are and third is erratic gambling behavior and i think all three of you have at some point  on again the situation at yea are as counsel has focused on the situation at e a are was it a solvent company was a pulling the wool over people's eyes did have an independent auditor but that's not the standard under bonded or i would argue to you under under the statute the standard is not knowledge of what's going on at the debtor the standard again is knowledge of the void ability of the transfer of even how did they gain the knowledge of the board ability if there is not a transparent observation of corporate malfeasance in one sense it's because they knew he was stealing money they knew he was stealing money from the company that's the answer to your question that's what they had in front of them that's what they knew and the question for how do you how do you tell the difference between stealing money from a company and simply as the owner compensating yourself you don't but if you continue to take money from the company you run the risk that if it turns out that that money is stolen you're going to have to give it back because that's the good faith part of this should or should have continued to do business with this guy knowing that he was transferring huge amounts of money from the company to or show the answer is you run the risk you're doing you're choosing to do business with this guy with notice that there's potentially a problem here that's your risk if it turns out that the money is simply as you say from a solvent company transferred by the owner then hey you get to keep it that's great but if you continue to do business with him on these facts on this record you know wheezed laundering money you know he's stealing you know we structur early two thousand and seven so i'd argue to you that from that point forward potentially although all of the transfers are taken at risk by her shoe it's into the middle of two thousand and eight when he starts making these huge trant transfers in humongous chunks one hundred thousand one hundred fifty thousand two hundred thousand dollars checks there were eleven checks he wrote over two hundred thousand dollars and there's one more thing that i want to point out to you with regard to corporate malfeasance and structuring in money laundering this guy would go in he'd buy fifty thousand dollars of markers one day he lose ten thousand dollars and then the next day he would come in and he take another thirty thousand dollars and markers out why would he do that he had he's only lost ten thousand dollars of the fifty he was given the day before he's got forty thousand dollars supposedly in chips sitting sitting in front of him why does he need to take out more you couple that with the fact that the money that the chips were were missing had disappeared and that's enough to show this discus you know that this man was money laundering thank you very much all right our thanks to all counsel the cases taken under