Opinion ID: 588107
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Value

Text: 30 Grant contends that section 152 implicitly requires that the concealment involve a substantial amount of property material to the chapter 7 estate, see United States v. Key, 859 F.2d 1257, 1261 (7th Cir.1988), which must be determined in relation to the overall value of the estate. 16 Relying on the victim loss calculation made at sentencing, see U.S.S.G. § 2F1.1, Grant argues that the government at best may have proven concealment of two Stobart prints worth $100, which must be considered too insubstantial a value, as a matter of law, in relation to a debtor estate of $3,000,000 to $4,000,000. 17 31 Grant cites no authority for the suggested substantiality requirement and nothing in the language of section 152 supports it. See Kanner v. United States, 21 F.2d 285, 287 (2d Cir.1927) (value of concealed property is not an essential element of the conduct criminalized under § 152); cf. United States v. Solomonson, 908 F.2d 358, 364-65 (8th Cir.1990) (unnecessary to prove actual financial loss to victim under bank fraud statute). 18 Furthermore, as the overriding prophylactic aim of the bankruptcy fraud statute is to deter and punish conduct which would inhibit the ability of the trustee, as distinguished from the debtor, see Bankruptcy Code § 542(a), 11 U.S.C. § 542(a); see also supra pp. 805-06, to determine whether property of the estate is of sufficient value to warrant liquidation and distribution for the benefit of creditors, we do not find the substantiality claim compelling in the present circumstances. 19 32 Finally, a careful review of the record convinces us that there was sufficient evidence to support a jury finding, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Grant concealed as many as eight or nine Stobart prints. 20 Additionally, the jury was not required to credit the liquidation-valuation evidence presented by Grant, rather than the much higher cost or market value evidence introduced by the government. 21