Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): find a scheme to defraud. He also conceded in his brief that either Pastor Holmes or the Greater Hope Baptist Church could be classified as the victims of his fraudulent scheme. He argues that there was insufficient evidence of the victim’s travel and that the district court erred in its instruction on this issue. He also asserts that there was insufficient evidence of inducement. A. Basic to Thomas’s arguments regarding the victim’s travel is an issue inherent in each. Both Thomas and the government agree that to violate 18 U.S.C. § 2314, the defendant must induce the victim to travel in interstate commerce. Id. at 164. Thomas argues that Mukes’s travel cannot satisfy the interstate travel requirement of § 2314 because Mukes was not the victim of the fraud. The government th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). We agree with our sister circuits that travel 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that while an agents knowledge is imputed to the principal due to the identity of interests that is presumed when an agent acts within the scope of an agency relation this rule does not operate in the converse and the agent cannot be imputed with the information which its principal has failed to give it (B) holding that where an agent is guilty of independent fraud for his benefit knowledge of the fraud is not imputed to the principal (C) holding that travel by an agent of defrauded corporation is imputed to the victim (D) holding that  10b applies to fraud on corporation by controlling stockholder and that the fact that creditors of the defrauded corporation may be the ultimate victims does not warrant disregard of the corporate entity (E) holding that a corporation could be served by delivering a copy of the subpoena to an officer or managing or general agent of the corporation and that the agent could be an individual a partnership or another corporation
Output (English): holding that while an agents knowledge is imputed to the principal due to the identity of interests that is presumed when an agent acts within the scope of an agency relation this rule does not operate in the converse and the agent cannot be imputed with the information which its principal has failed to give it