the st issue is the charge he looked at the underlying process and considered the complexity of the underlying fraud and his in deciding that problem with this case i don't know because there's nothing in the record there has to be not you and the case that i'm getting this from is us versus waiting in waveland the government put out a an expert it has to be somewhat complicated so walk by definition well big money laundering is moving the proceeds from crime or oh well it's it's a little bit more than just moving it it's actually trying to make it look compared to back just putting it in and taking it out again more well it's definitely more than putting in and taking it out but but other than just eyeballing it and just saying well i  guess i'm just going to go based on my experience about money laundering and i don't think you can do that i mean we don't know what we don't know what the parameters are all the different spectrum of possible money laundering examples are to decide what sophisticated  if the sentencing guidelines say that's what you need to do i could understand where would this requirement of evidence come from well it would come from the holding in wayland where it was this court that and that is the example from the guidelines the guidelines do give examples we don't those examples include offshore account they do it their offshore accounts of this instance they do well there but there were offshore cars there were there were well we i helped convert the money to nigerian yarra and i helped get the money from the us to a nigerian account so he played some role that's all we know there's no other evidence about the offshore car so the whole purpose of the amendment to the sophisticated means and hands me this amendment seventy two so that we can distinguish between who are the movers and shakers in the scheme and who are the smaller operators and that's why you're hold responsible for what you did not what others did and so in this particular case it with the example of the option accounts there are other people that are involved in that and all we know sophisticated and you were going to try to figure out where our speed in there i suppose you could do that but that's generally not the way we do it when we're figuring out guidelines generally when we're figuring out guidelines we look at the notes we look at the samples and we the scale from i mean like for example the government says well he withdrew the money quickly well ok i don't know sometimes to do with through the money within a day or two sometimes it was three or four or five days does that make it ok did i mean i think that we thousand so really what we have in this case is we have the government just looking at every attribute about this case explaining it all up into as many different pieces and say ok that sophisticated  is and compare this to the typical the you know we go down the list how do we know what the government did that they said well it was a he used to legitimate the accounts of a legitimate auto business but does that make it more sophisticated there's we don't have any there's no case in part act number one you had to use something that was innocuous that you could give to the fraudsters so that the victims wouldn't think what's going on is this something going on with the nigerian pride scheme no it's just cisco services the name of the corporation number two it's a business and it's a car business which helps that when they lie when the bankers would come in later on and ask why do you have all their money in your account they could lie and say well that's part of my business it's in my business account i'm the brought on the front end he was also in fraud involved on the fraud in the back and with the money laundering and the money was put into the account into one of his accounts that he controlled then he was able to take the money out quickly because he wanted to make sure that the banks didn't take the money cases the banks reacted so what judge connelly crop properly found was this there was this anticipatory planning done by the defendant and by his codefendant where they were saying look we've got to get the money out quick within twenty four hours we've got to have that offshore accounts and i did it because i was pretty and that's how i got it off short girls are all x that judge connelly says there are a series of coordinated transactions that when you view it as looking at itself maybe that's not a very elaborate but when you put them together you see a series of steps done that shows well they were they were planning and they executed it and they were successful and you know i would argue in the briefs the defense says well all of this conduct shows that it was successful but it wasn't necessarily sophisticated and the government's position is the complexity in the occasion of the acts themselves prove the sophistication in proving that's how you get the success the reason this thing was successful it's not mutually exclusive terms it can be successful and be sophisticated in that case and then the next case settle is going to i assume you mean among the schemes that get court are a really sophisticated money laundering scheme would not be caught or perhaps it would be bernie made off again going on for twenty but finally the higher us followed it and we traced it and we saw all this bank activity going on and that's how the case was brought to a conclusion the nd issue with the expert testimony issue of judg mentioned it there is no case law on this issue whalen doesn't stand for that point that you need expert testimony in whalen that was a jury trial and so the court was talking about they had an hour witness on the stand  never held that you need to have expert testimony or a benchmark set application note nine b doesn't say that you need that in this in the sense in guidelines if you look at what the definition is it doesn't say that you need expert testimony or benchmark it documents convince your partner that you were a doctor when you were convinced the patients you're a doctor when you work in total actual sophisticated means so there's the cases that are out there that i cited in the brief that show that in fact  you don't need expert testimony to make this finding and in this case judge cami didn't error when he found that not only was mr k k k engaging in acts of money laundering on his own but the court correctly found in this isn't bootstrapping that when he went on the fraud part of it the court said not only that but let's look at his actions with regards to the fraud who played a crucial role in the broad account and that he's not he wasn't holding mr keiki responsible for relevant conduct of other people for on a while misconduct or conduct anybody else who was holding him responsible for his conduct being the money longer on the front end of the fraud the whole thing doesn't work unless you tell the victim put it in this account and that it worked for two years they were able to fleece over one thousand people at two million six hundred thousand because of that your honor we believe the court is not fair and we'd ask you know from the judgment thank you that that because they were successful that's why we're here they would if there was no money laundering we wouldn't be here and that's why we need some way to distinguish the typical from the sophisticated money laundering scheme and he wasn't involved in the front end of the project he was involved he wasn't involved in the fraud at all he was involved at the very end he was the last player he had no role in the fraud and judge connelly held him responsible for the case of the profits thank you thank you very much