misleading statements made by executives of stage truth who were stationed in the london office to six foreign clients of state street russia we promise and ben but there are charges for transitioning well set of for i understand the foreign part of it but i thought that there was considerable evidence of domestic conduct here is that not so it was part of predominately a foreign scheme to defraud rated that some of these acts took place in the united states by your client wish this evidence in the light most favorable to the government for mr mcclellan did head has some participation and turns with no warning and not the random and isolated non essential to mess that wider and that ended the issue because just a broken mistakenly we can ted believed that wire fraud so intended by congress  response they trust to the stage to its representations that all the charges would be explicit and it would only be a fixture arch whether it was a bit of management for a but they all said when asked by the government what would you a basis point two basis points fred three would have changed their investment strategy but they would have not put up or sold any specific security but they would have acted in any way different but we all had investment good morning your arson may please the court steven frayne united states the defendant is asking this court to make three unprecedented failings that we submit are contrary to established supreme court and circuit law for st to narrow the reach of the securities fraud statutes in a way that is contrary to explicit supreme court precedent set and to similarly narrow the reach of the wire fraud statute such that it would reach the criminal conduct of an american defendant who conducted his scheme from right here in boston and rd although he didn't address it in his remarks to order the government to seek evidence from abroad using its powers pursuant to mutual legal assistance treaties with two different countries despite the fact that this court has previously concluded that it lacks subject matter terrorist action to review the actions of the attorney general pursuant to those this is defendant specific we approve and directed the misrepresentations that were made to state streets clients to corroborating witnesses testified to that testified that he approved each of the misrepresentations and that he directed the scheme he also personally applied to marcos here in boston he directed traders to apply those markups and he directed traders to mislead their colleagues and th clients about those markers he also directed the car of the scheme and e mails and calls recorded calls corroborated all that so the government would submit that if all of the to reach the question of extraterritoriality to the extent that the court does reach that question we believe the answer to that question is provided by the supreme court decision in the past when teano case  have committed conviction based on any any one random act in mystic that i don't think that's accurate i respect but i don't think that's an accurate accurate characterization of the narrowing of the securities fraud statute effectively to say that that statute cannot reach a banker who misrepresents to his client the price at which that client is buying every single security it buys and the fact that it's good for every single security that it sells he case after case the supreme court has suggested as hell that he in connection with the language of the securities fraud statute should be given broad interpretation flexible interpretation of source and consistent with the underlying purpose of that statute which is to protect investors has it said that in criminal cases it has actually  well i can't point to a specific criminal case but in the sanford case which was an s e c case the court said explicitly that there was no need for a misrepresentation to concerned statute is not limited to misrepresentations in connection with the selection of securities but to a misrepresentation in connection with the purchase and sale of securities whether that relates to the selection or whether that relates to something loosen the fact that statute the court said its construction in connection with it would not preclude the government from gray any sort of criminal case that the government has heretofore brought so i think with respect to me in connection with language whether respect whether it's in a criminal case or in a civil case the court has been very clear that the language has to be given brought out occasions to effect the purposes of the of the act and and i point to those th circuit cases which where the facts of those cases were limited to the choice of the bank but that was not the situation here the fraud began with the selection of state street as the broker dealer but the magnetism of the fraud was the application of hidden commissions to every single purchase and every single sale was secured without the purchase and sale of a security problem simply not happened if the misrepresentation had never been put into fact through the purchase and sale of securities there would have been no fraud and so that's why those eleven circuit cases one of which dealt with accounting fraud and one of the and there were no misrepresentations communicated to investors north or any purchase or sale of the security implicated and the other which dealt with processing fees where again there was no risk representation to the investors no loss of the investors about the amount of the processing fee and those cases are really not political on the facts to this case and i actually don't think that they're even inconsistent with the conclusion of this court that where the fraud goes beyond simply the selection of the broker dealer to the to the application of hidden commissions to every single purchase and every single sale that that is plainly securities fraud and that's what the nd circuit and district courts in the nd circuit have repeatedly concluded we should respect cases involving excessive commissions applied to barmaids those cases did not concern wish bonds were traded or the selection of bonds they concerned excessive issue this is a classic fact issue do you believe the evidence of the domestic contacts do you believe to domestic why those were important to a court component of the fraud if you don't