[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
Good afternoon, your honors.

[00:00:03] Speaker 02:
Tarek Adlai on behalf of Modi Mizrahi.

[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
Just a road map, I propose to devote my time to two terms that

[00:00:12] Speaker 02:
appear to be war-shocking plots for the federal judiciary right now.

[00:00:17] Speaker 02:
One is, what does it mean to improperly use a means of identification so that it becomes a federal crime punishable by an additional two years of imprisonment on top of any punishment for the underlying crime?

[00:00:32] Speaker 02:
And second, what does it mean to go above and beyond committing a crime so that you're no longer in the typical area

[00:00:39] Speaker 02:
and your actions are deemed sophisticated.

[00:00:43] Speaker 02:
In both of these areas, sentences are being enhanced or not simply because of the intuitions of individual jurists.

[00:00:54] Speaker 02:
Hopefully I can do all that and answer all your questions and still reserve a minute or two for rebuttal.

[00:01:02] Speaker 02:
With regard to the 1028, the facts are really simple.

[00:01:06] Speaker 02:
Mr. Mizrahi entered his business's name on a check, pre-signed by his employer, and then he deposited it to his account.

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
There are myriad ways to commit an embezzlement.

[00:01:19] Speaker 02:
This is one of them.

[00:01:21] Speaker 02:
But to uphold the additional two years here, I think the central question has to be, why is this embezzlement more aggravated

[00:01:31] Speaker 02:
simply because he did it by misappropriating his employer's check, pre-signed check, rather than some other method of embezzlement.

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
Identity theft is not just theft or fraud.

[00:01:43] Speaker 02:
Congress enacted 1028A to reduce a different type of harm, a harm not already protected by the theft and fraud statutes.

[00:01:54] Speaker 02:
And although 1028A generically uses the term, use of identity markers do have been made clear

[00:02:01] Speaker 02:
that the statute is not violated merely because someone else's name or marker shows up somewhere.

[00:02:08] Speaker 02:
Rather than prescribing the mere mention of another's name, the statute is focused on a particular type of harm.

[00:02:16] Speaker 02:
And I submitted a 28-J letter earlier this morning.

[00:02:22] Speaker 02:
Congress was particularly concerned about defendants passing themselves off as another, exercising authority on behalf of another or acting on behalf of another.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
Identity thieves don't just steal assets.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
for it to be identity theft, people end up fraudulently establishing credit, running up debt.

[00:02:46] Speaker 02:
They take over financial accounts in ways that are difficult, if not impossible, to stop.

[00:02:52] Speaker 04:
So, if I may interrupt you for a moment, would it be identity theft if somebody used somebody else's credit card?

[00:03:02] Speaker 02:
I don't think that the card itself would necessarily be identity theft.

[00:03:07] Speaker 04:
Well, I guess the way it would be criminal is they would use somebody else's credit card and make a purchase, and they would be impersonating the actual owner of the credit card and using that to steal money, essentially.

[00:03:25] Speaker 04:
So how is that different from using a check?

[00:03:30] Speaker 04:
Different from using a check I wouldn't say that there's much different at all okay, so then the first question is it would using the credit card be aggravated identity theft under 1028 um

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
I think identity theft, which is the core of this, the problem is when someone, and I've been told not to sort of talk in abstractions, but they seize information.

[00:03:55] Speaker 02:
And what Congress was concerned about was that in the modern age, thieves no longer needed documents or credit cards.

[00:04:04] Speaker 02:
I mean, 20 years ago, they needed a credit card.

[00:04:07] Speaker 02:
They needed an identity card.

[00:04:08] Speaker 04:
So now they can use your credit card number, right?

[00:04:10] Speaker 04:
So numbers, account numbers, that would count.

[00:04:14] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:04:15] Speaker 02:
So if somebody took your credit card and copied down your number and then started making charges, yes.

[00:04:23] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:04:24] Speaker 02:
But I think if all they have is the credit card, they run it through, I don't think that's identity theft.

[00:04:30] Speaker 02:
I don't think that's this case.

[00:04:32] Speaker 02:
And I don't want to sort of get too off what we have.

[00:04:37] Speaker 04:
But what you're suggesting is whether this is identity theft depends on really how it is accomplished at a granular level, whether they run the magnetic strip of the card or whether they just use the numbers and type them in.

[00:04:51] Speaker 04:
and use your account number to steal from you.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
It could be.

[00:04:57] Speaker 02:
It could be.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
I am not asking this court to derive a theory, a complete comprehensive theory of identity theft.

[00:05:06] Speaker 02:
But what I do think is happening is that with identity theft,

[00:05:11] Speaker 02:
The impersonated victim can wind up having tons of debt.

[00:05:17] Speaker 02:
So one of the problems with identity theft that Congress was seeking to get at, with your credit card, the consumer protection laws actually protect consumers so that we can complain to the credit card and say, that wasn't me.

[00:05:33] Speaker 02:
That wasn't mine.

[00:05:34] Speaker 02:
And we're limited.

[00:05:36] Speaker 01:
It doesn't protect business users, business credit cards.

[00:05:39] Speaker 02:
Oh, certainly.

[00:05:39] Speaker 02:
Certainly.

[00:05:40] Speaker 02:
Absolutely.

[00:05:41] Speaker 02:
I don't mean.

[00:05:42] Speaker 01:
And so the school's credit card was used.

[00:05:45] Speaker 01:
I'm not obvious.

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
I know it wasn't.

[00:05:47] Speaker 01:
But if the school's credit card was used, what difference did it make?

[00:05:51] Speaker 01:
Then the check was used.

[00:05:52] Speaker 01:
It was the way I see it.

[00:05:53] Speaker 01:
I mean, Mr. Mizrazi,

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
misused the school's check, misused the treasurer's signature, which is on the check.

[00:06:02] Speaker 01:
The treasurer is an individual human being, even if we agree with your position on what an individual is.

[00:06:07] Speaker 01:
He used the school's funds without the school's authorization to further his scheme to defraud investors because he used those funds to then pay off some of the investors when he couldn't pay them earlier.

[00:06:20] Speaker 01:
And had he not been able to do that, the fraud would have been exposed and come crashing down.

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
That is fraud, Your Honor.

[00:06:29] Speaker 02:
That is fraud.

[00:06:30] Speaker 01:
And the use of the check to accomplish that was basically the crux of the problem here.

[00:06:38] Speaker 01:
He used the check, somebody else's check without authorization, to commit this fraud.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
And fraud is one of the

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
enumerated crimes for identity theft.

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
Right.

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
But he did not expose the school or the treasurer to any of the concerns that motivated what Dubin emphasized, that the identity theft crime needs to be narrowly targeted.

[00:07:06] Speaker 02:
It's not just indiscriminate.

[00:07:09] Speaker 03:
It has to be at the crux of the misrepresentation that is

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
illegal, right?

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
And here, I mean, you said earlier that to use somebody's identity, which could be their name, right, and without authorization, essentially he used the treasurer's name to falsely convey that the check had been authorized to him.

[00:07:31] Speaker 02:
So here's where I would distinguish the crux.

[00:07:34] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
And that is that actually that there was nothing on that check as when he received it that was criminal.

[00:07:43] Speaker 02:
That was a problem.

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
Not the names, not the addresses, not the signatures, not the banking numbers, the crux.

[00:07:51] Speaker 02:
What made this criminal was that he took it and put his name on it and then deposited it to his account.

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
Right, but when he did that, he was using the fact that the treasurer's name and signature was on it to falsely convey to the receiving financial institution that that check had been authorized.

[00:08:12] Speaker 02:
So in a broad sense of the word use, that is correct.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
But Dubin emphasized that we need not to use the broad use, the broad definition of use.

[00:08:24] Speaker 03:
Without that name, that check would not have cleared.

[00:08:28] Speaker 02:
But it would have been an attempted crime.

[00:08:30] Speaker 02:
So that is correct.

[00:08:31] Speaker 02:
I mean, if the banking numbers had been wrong, if he had forged the signature, if he had signed his own name to the check, I mean, it sounds like he gets.

[00:08:42] Speaker 03:
The use of the treasurer's name was absolutely necessary for him to fraud him and get that money.

[00:08:50] Speaker 02:
Actually, I think in the modern day of processing, I think the answer is actually not.

[00:08:56] Speaker 02:
that a check will end up clearing until as long as there is a signature or a scroll there.

[00:09:04] Speaker 02:
So I understand, yes, the name shouldn't have been done, but the treasurer didn't have any exposure to having to clean up his credit.

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
So Dubin said, what is it that makes the predicate offense criminal?

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
And the fact that the treasurer's name is on the check isn't what makes depositing it to his account criminal.

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
It's depositing it to his account.

[00:09:34] Speaker 02:
That's what makes this criminal.

[00:09:36] Speaker 03:
I'm pretty sure it's depositing a check that wasn't actually authorized to him is what makes it criminal.

[00:09:42] Speaker 02:
Absolutely, absolutely, that it wasn't authorized.

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
It's about that signature, right?

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
It's using that signature that made that possible.

[00:09:52] Speaker 03:
So it made it... I mean, if a check had actually been written to him, that would not have been fraudulent.

[00:10:00] Speaker 02:
Certainly, but the embezzlement itself was not made worse.

[00:10:06] Speaker 02:
I mean, what Congress did is they enacted 1028A, even though they already had the fraud and theft statutes.

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
And they did that in order to protect something else.

[00:10:18] Speaker 03:
And that's something that- If he had access to the school's bank account directly, and he had just taken the money directly,

[00:10:26] Speaker 03:
That would be embezzlement without identity theft.

[00:10:30] Speaker 03:
But in this case, he needed to misuse the treasurer's name in order to get that check to clear.

[00:10:40] Speaker 02:
Only in a broad sense of use.

[00:10:43] Speaker 02:
I mean, if I presented a check made out to me, no one would think that I was committing identity theft just because it wasn't a legitimate check or that I had misused it.

[00:10:56] Speaker 02:
That is not, I mean, Dubin emphasized that this statute needed to be tailored to classic identity theft.

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
Yes, there is a use.

[00:11:06] Speaker 02:
In the broad sense, there is a use.

[00:11:08] Speaker 02:
But there is not a use that, one of the problems is when an identity theft, a thief, gets control of your assets, you've lost control.

[00:11:23] Speaker 02:
They can commit crimes.

[00:11:26] Speaker 02:
in your name, in your name.

[00:11:28] Speaker 02:
And you can end up with civil judgments against you, with criminal judgments against you.

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
They can declare bankruptcy in your name.

[00:11:37] Speaker 02:
And those types of harms is exactly what Congress was trying to

[00:11:43] Speaker 01:
Your time is running low and it is you mentioned sophisticated and I I came with one question on sophistication Maybe I should ask it and then let that tee up your argument if you want But it seems to me with 30 something 32 33 34 people being defrauded to give up millions of dollars

[00:12:04] Speaker 01:
It's not that easy.

[00:12:05] Speaker 01:
And they were presented with a prospectus that convinced them that this is a real company and does real stuff.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
They were presented with the fake E-Trade account statements that made it look realistic.

[00:12:17] Speaker 01:
They were persuaded that Mr. Mizrazi was using these techniques to basically have risk-free trading with various types of techniques.

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
That's not that easy to persuade someone to give up a lot of money and do it persuasively, and it strikes me that only someone who is pretty sophisticated in creating that can persuade someone to give up millions of dollars.

[00:12:43] Speaker 02:
So, Your Honor, in an abstract way, if this were the public at large, perhaps, this was a small community that makes it indeed in part particularly harsh on all involved.

[00:12:56] Speaker 02:
This was a small religious community who all knew each other.

[00:13:01] Speaker 02:
And they knew it.

[00:13:02] Speaker 02:
They'd known him, Modi, for years.

[00:13:05] Speaker 02:
They'd all known each other for years.

[00:13:07] Speaker 02:
And I think falsified documents, that's the gist of investment frauds.

[00:13:14] Speaker 02:
I mean, prospectuses, trading statements.

[00:13:17] Speaker 02:
Congress mandated, not over, nearly 100 years ago, mandated that investment

[00:13:25] Speaker 02:
organizations provide a prospectus of the businesses, finances, and business.

[00:13:32] Speaker 01:
Explain how he could do this without risking, without them risking their principle and guaranteed so much money.

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
That is a pretty sophisticated technique that he'd have to explain, right?

[00:13:44] Speaker 02:
I think it's pretty easy to lie.

[00:13:47] Speaker 02:
But not lie persuasively.

[00:13:50] Speaker 01:
I can lie to you and say, give me your money and I promise I'll double your money in three weeks and no risk.

[00:13:56] Speaker 01:
But I can't do it persuasively unless I'm pretty sophisticated.

[00:13:59] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, there is nothing in the record that indicates how persuasive or how compelling.

[00:14:07] Speaker 02:
In fact, the district judge, one of the faults that I brought up is that he relied heavily on the evidence at the co-defendant's trial.

[00:14:15] Speaker 02:
But the other problems, ultimately, is that you can't commit an investment fraud.

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
without what you're talking about, without falsified prospectuses, without falsified statements.

[00:14:28] Speaker 02:
I mean, they're typical and inherent in any fraud, in any investment fraud.

[00:14:34] Speaker 02:
And I think that's what, that's the standard.

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
The standard is, is this outside of what's for a fraud of this type.

[00:14:45] Speaker 02:
And I would

[00:14:46] Speaker 02:
direct the court's attention to the fact that the guidelines, I know the guidelines aren't exclusive, but they talk about something very specific, inter-jurisdictional offshore accounts, multiple corporate shells.

[00:15:02] Speaker 02:
And what you're talking about, Judge Simon, is just a whole different level.

[00:15:07] Speaker 02:
It pales in comparison to the level of sophistication of corporate shells.

[00:15:11] Speaker 02:
Corporate shells, you need an attorney to get involved, or at least someone who's doing that.

[00:15:16] Speaker 02:
Putting up some documents together, not so.

[00:15:21] Speaker 02:
I see I'm out of time.

[00:15:23] Speaker 04:
I will give you a couple of minutes for rebuttal.

[00:15:27] Speaker 02:
I appreciate that, Your Honor.

[00:15:39] Speaker 00:
May it please the court, William Glasser for the United States.

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:15:42] Speaker 00:
Rahe can't show any reversible error in his conviction or his sentence.

[00:15:47] Speaker 00:
To start first with the aggravated identity theft statute, the main question that seems to be in dispute today is whether or not the

[00:15:57] Speaker 00:
someone commits aggravated identity theft when they use the means of identification of another person to commit an offense, when they don't do something sort of above and beyond that and take on that person's identity to the extent that the person's entire identity is at risk, such as, for example, being accused of additional crimes.

[00:16:18] Speaker 00:
That's just not something that's in the text of the statute.

[00:16:21] Speaker 00:
And it's not something that the Supreme Court required in Dubin.

[00:16:24] Speaker 00:
So if we think of the question of is someone's identity at risk if their financial accounts are at risk, and they absolutely were here, in this case obviously it was the schools rather than the treasurers, then that easily satisfies the requirements of Section 1028A without us proving that somehow the person's entire identity has been adopted by the fraudster.

[00:16:48] Speaker 00:
This court in its Harris decision, which both briefs discuss, specifically relying on the Sixth Circuit's Michael decision, rejected the view that there needed to be impersonation in order to violate Section 1028A.

[00:17:03] Speaker 00:
The Michael case, citing prior Sixth Circuit precedent, said that although it adopted a Dubin-like standard where overbilling isn't enough, it said that if a doctor

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
or excuse me, a Medicare biller were to submit falsified prescriptions with the false signatures of a doctor, that that is identity theft.

[00:17:21] Speaker 00:
And the Supreme Court in Dubon cited Michael, cited this court's Hong case as well, cited those as good examples of where to draw the line, a misrepresentation about who was involved.

[00:17:34] Speaker 00:
And that's exactly what we have here, even if it doesn't rise to the level of actually impersonating the person.

[00:17:40] Speaker 00:
There's a misrepresentation about who was involved in authorizing that check to Mr. Mizrahi's company.

[00:17:46] Speaker 00:
The representation that Mr. Mizrahi made was the treasurer authorized this check to me, when in fact he himself did that after fraudulently obtaining pre-signed checks.

[00:17:59] Speaker 00:
If the court has no further questions about the 1028A, I'm happy to briefly touch on sophisticated means as well.

[00:18:08] Speaker 00:
The question on sophisticated means is simply whether

[00:18:12] Speaker 00:
the District Court abused its discretion or clearly erred in finding that sophisticated means were involved here.

[00:18:22] Speaker 00:
And that's a pretty deferential standard to the District Court.

[00:18:26] Speaker 00:
The District Court explained all the things, Judge Simon, that you mentioned, that the victims here were presented with falsified documents.

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
In addition, as we pointed out in our brief, there were these lolling payments that actually were crucial to sustaining the fraud over

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
a long period of time.

[00:18:44] Speaker 00:
And those representations, perhaps maybe one of these things in and of itself might not be enough, but when you take all these factors together, there's also the fact that this very complicated transaction of providing collateral for one investor where Mr. Mizrahi and his brother persuaded their

[00:19:04] Speaker 00:
sister and her husband to give a lien on their home as collateral for one of the investors.

[00:19:10] Speaker 00:
And then when the investor wanted his money back, they obtained a hard money loan against that home, used it to repay that investor in exchange for a false settlement agreement.

[00:19:22] Speaker 01:
I missed why lulling payments are sophisticated.

[00:19:25] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:19:27] Speaker 00:
Your Honor, the reason that lowing payments are sophisticated is that if you just have a bare bones fraud, bare bones Ponzi scheme, where you say you're going to give someone a whole bunch of money and you just never give them anything back, the fraud is only going to last so long.

[00:19:43] Speaker 00:
The lowing payments, as the Supreme Court even has recognized, I believe the Lane case that we cited in our brief,

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
Lulling payments can perpetuate the fraud.

[00:19:50] Speaker 00:
And again, maybe lulling payments aren't in and of themselves enough to impose a sophisticated means enhancement.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
But when you have all these things together, the falsified documents, the lulling payments, and then this very complicated transaction that I described, all of those together were enough for this court to find no clear error in the district court's finding of sophisticated means.

[00:20:10] Speaker 04:
I have a question for you about Mr. Merzahy's argument

[00:20:16] Speaker 04:
That section 1028A is void for vagueness.

[00:20:20] Speaker 04:
Your brief suggests that plain error review applies.

[00:20:26] Speaker 04:
But don't we have the discretion to apply de novo review because your brief did not argue that Mr. and Ms.

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
Raheed forfeited this argument and that the government would be prejudiced if we considered it.

[00:20:40] Speaker 00:
So your honor, I do think I made the argument that he forfeited.

[00:20:44] Speaker 00:
And if I didn't make that clear, I apologize.

[00:20:46] Speaker 00:
So the only arguments that he raised were those contained within his motion to withdraw the plea based on Dubin.

[00:20:54] Speaker 00:
And vagueness is nowhere mentioned in that motion to withdraw the plea.

[00:20:58] Speaker 00:
So he certainly didn't preserve it.

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
To the extent that this court believes it can nevertheless address the issue under de novo review, I think the only avenue for that would be the pure question of law exception, which, as you likely know, this court is considering in the Gomez case.

[00:21:15] Speaker 00:
I believe our oral argument is scheduled for next week.

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
So it's not clear that the pure question of law exception is going to survive the en banc proceedings in Gomez.

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
But regardless, I think if this court were to even apply de novo review, the vagueness challenge would not prevail.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
The only authority that he can cite for his claim that it's unconstitutionally vague is Justice Gorsuch's concurrence in Dubin.

[00:21:45] Speaker 00:
That view was rejected by eight members of the Supreme Court, or at least it wasn't teed up in one sense in Dubin, but the majority,

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
responded to the dissent, suggesting that no, their reading of the statute was sufficient to avoid vagueness.

[00:22:03] Speaker 00:
So there's just essentially no support for that argument, even if this court were to apply de novo review.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
But we do think that he forfeited, and he can't show any plain error, because no court has accepted that argument.

[00:22:17] Speaker 00:
If the court has no further questions, I'd ask the court to affirm.

[00:22:21] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:22:21] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:22:29] Speaker 02:
uh...

[00:22:32] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:22:35] Speaker 02:
With regard to the financial accounts at risk, I would simply say that the risk was not unlimited.

[00:22:42] Speaker 02:
It was able to be curtailed by the cancellation of checks, by firing Mr. Mizrahi, in the other example, the courts used canceling a credit card.

[00:22:54] Speaker 02:
These are the things that distinguish the use of a name.

[00:22:57] Speaker 02:
I mean, every investor's name,

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
was used in this case.

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
And so what is it about this case that makes the fact that he embezzled via a pre-signed check, an authorized signed check?

[00:23:15] Speaker 02:
What makes it worse that mandates, that warrants the extra two-year penalty?

[00:23:21] Speaker 02:
With regard to Harris,

[00:23:25] Speaker 02:
The misrepresentation of who is simply the sine qua non of what constitutes identity theft.

[00:23:33] Speaker 02:
It is not everything.

[00:23:35] Speaker 02:
And I think the rest of that, there is more to it than just saying it's a question of who.

[00:23:45] Speaker 02:
The school, the treasurer were, in fact, involved.

[00:23:48] Speaker 02:
There was no misrepresentation of that.

[00:23:50] Speaker 02:
As for the abuse of discretion standard,

[00:23:54] Speaker 02:
I would note that, again, the district court considered all sorts of things that were not part of Modi Mizrahi's record.

[00:24:06] Speaker 02:
And with regard to lolling Judge Simon,

[00:24:12] Speaker 02:
First of all, we don't even know what was a lulling payment.

[00:24:16] Speaker 02:
We just know that there were payments.

[00:24:19] Speaker 02:
And in fact, Mr. Mizrahi, we know the government concedes that he gave out at least $3.4 million.

[00:24:26] Speaker 02:
The SEC found that he returned $4 million.

[00:24:29] Speaker 02:
After collecting only $7.3, this is not lulling.

[00:24:34] Speaker 02:
He didn't get into this scheme intending to steal from his friends and from his community.

[00:24:42] Speaker 02:
He was in over his head and he kept digging.

[00:24:45] Speaker 02:
And those, by trying to refund people, to make good on his worthless promises, that's not aggravating.

[00:24:55] Speaker 02:
That's mitigating.

[00:24:58] Speaker 02:
The court did not seem to be concerned about the collateral

[00:25:02] Speaker 02:
the use of a third party's collateral, Mr. Yehezkolov's request for security.

[00:25:09] Speaker 02:
That wasn't Mr. Mizrahi's doing.

[00:25:11] Speaker 02:
That was simply an investor saying, I'm putting up a lot of money.

[00:25:14] Speaker 02:
I want some guarantees here.

[00:25:18] Speaker 02:
And the only thing that the government points to in that transaction as complicated was that he said,

[00:25:27] Speaker 02:
I didn't steal.

[00:25:29] Speaker 02:
And that is not sophisticated.

[00:25:31] Speaker 02:
It is typical of any fraud.

[00:25:36] Speaker 04:
So you are over time now.

[00:25:40] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:25:40] Speaker 04:
Thank you both for your arguments this afternoon.

[00:25:43] Speaker 04:
And this case is submitted.

[00:25:45] Speaker 04:
And we are adjourned.

[00:25:47] Speaker 02:
Thank you.