[00:00:02] Speaker 00:
mahalo may it please the court ellis johnston on behalf of marcus unigwe the defendant appellant in this case i'll do my best to reserve a minute this court has already ruled that mr unigwe's case is not moot but i want to argue today that the two sentencing errors by the district court were not harmless they weren't harmless when the district judge sentenced mr unigwe under the unfounded belief that he personally caused nearly a million dollars worth of

[00:00:30] Speaker 00:
financial loss to fraud victims of a separate fraud and it wasn't harmless when the district court sentenced Mr. Unigwe believing that he knew the proceeds he received were unlawful gains or as the government continues to argue to this day that he participated in the actual fraud conspiracy rather than the crime to which he pled.

[00:00:51] Speaker 00:
Guidelines matter.

[00:00:53] Speaker 00:
The district judge knew the guidelines mattered.

[00:00:55] Speaker 00:
At ER 42, during his original pronouncement of sentence, he said, quote, the sentence is a product of the guidelines together with the factors of 18 U.S.C.

[00:01:04] Speaker 00:
Section 3553A.

[00:01:05] Speaker 03:
He also said that he was placing a particular emphasis on the avoidance of disparity.

[00:01:11] Speaker 03:
That's on ER 42.

[00:01:12] Speaker 00:
That's correct, Your Honor, and I do want to come back to that in a moment.

[00:01:18] Speaker 00:
Importantly, the government says the court doesn't need to reach the merits of these issues because at a later date, the district court indicated relatively tersely that because the court fails to see an error in its application of the offender score adjustments, because even if it did, it would impose the same sentence based on nine guideline considerations, it was in that case denying bail.

[00:01:38] Speaker 00:
What this court requires, the very case cited by the government in Munoz, is more than simply saying that the court would impose the same sentence.

[00:01:46] Speaker 00:
What Munoz said is required is specifically

[00:01:54] Speaker 00:
an explanation among other things, the reason for the extent of variance.

[00:01:58] Speaker 00:
And that's why I want to come back to disparity now.

[00:02:01] Speaker 00:
What is it about those initial comments that would justify this sentence?

[00:02:06] Speaker 00:
And before I do that, when the district court was denying bail pending appeal,

[00:02:11] Speaker 00:
It was doing it where the argument was, not just the two arguments I'm raising here, but that Mr. Unigwe would be at a adjusted offense level resulting in a 10 to 16 month guideline range.

[00:02:22] Speaker 00:
So the court was saying, I would impose 18 months whether your sentence was lower than that or your sentencing range was lower than that or higher than that.

[00:02:30] Speaker 00:
How does he do it?

[00:02:31] Speaker 00:
Well, disparity is the telling thing here.

[00:02:33] Speaker 00:
How do you do a disparity analysis

[00:02:36] Speaker 00:
unless you're able to figure out how similarly situated defendants are in the case.

[00:02:41] Speaker 00:
And that's exactly what the problems are here.

[00:02:43] Speaker 00:
The merits of these sentencing issues are a district judge who believed that Mr. Unigwe personally caused loss and that he apparently was involved in the fraud conspiracy to which he didn't plead.

[00:02:53] Speaker 00:
What he did was operate an unlicensed money transmission business.

[00:02:59] Speaker 00:
And so I think that that statement isn't sufficient under Munoz.

[00:03:05] Speaker 00:
And it isn't sufficient even if we sit here and say, how could he get to that?

[00:03:08] Speaker 00:
How could he sentence the same person to the same sentence if he understood him to be doing an unlicensed business as opposed to being part of a conspiracy fraud where he's personally causing millions of dollars worth of damage?

[00:03:22] Speaker 00:
I think the first issue, whether he personally caused substantial financial hardship, is relatively straightforward if we just deal first with the government's misunderstanding of what Mr. Unigwe was found guilty of.

[00:03:38] Speaker 00:
He was found guilty of operating an unlawful money business.

[00:03:42] Speaker 00:
However, the only thing that the government has argued here on appeal is that he pled guilty to an inchoate crime of conspiracy, which required only his agreement to participate in the fraud scheme.

[00:03:52] Speaker 00:
And then it says because of his active participation in the fraud scheme, he caused substantial financial hardship.

[00:03:59] Speaker 00:
The government couldn't even say personally caused.

[00:04:01] Speaker 00:
And this is a new guideline.

[00:04:03] Speaker 00:
This court has not published

[00:04:05] Speaker 00:
opinions on it, but personally causing substantial financial harm requires something more than receiving money that someone else has defrauded another.

[00:04:15] Speaker 01:
What are we supposed to think about this?

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
Personally caused, I think, has to mean something different from caused.

[00:04:22] Speaker 01:
Otherwise, personally means nothing.

[00:04:25] Speaker 01:
So how are we supposed to figure that out?

[00:04:27] Speaker 01:
Does that mean that anyone down a sort of a chain of

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
I stole it.

[00:04:35] Speaker 01:
I give it to the fence.

[00:04:36] Speaker 01:
He's my fence.

[00:04:37] Speaker 01:
He's been my fence for 10 years.

[00:04:39] Speaker 01:
Without my fence, I probably wouldn't be doing this.

[00:04:42] Speaker 01:
Did the fence personally cause?

[00:04:43] Speaker 01:
I mean, how do I draw the line as to what's personally and not personally?

[00:04:48] Speaker 01:
Give me some help here.

[00:04:49] Speaker 00:
Well, Judge Fletcher, by applying a but-for analysis that I think has been articulated in two out-of-circuit district court orders that I've cited extensively in my briefs, but the question is, but for your actions, was the person, did they lose substantial financial hardship?

[00:05:06] Speaker 00:
So in this case, for this particular application in the guideline, the fence is not going to, is going to avail themselves of the minus two.

[00:05:16] Speaker 03:
But as you said, those are out-of-state district court decisions.

[00:05:20] Speaker 03:
We're looking at how we should apply this.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
So what you're suggesting is going to be in pretty serious tension with our case law that has to do with, if we go back to Judge Fletcher's question, about the downstream consequences.

[00:05:34] Speaker 03:
that talk about money laundering on the back end being part of the crime.

[00:05:39] Speaker 03:
Could you address that?

[00:05:40] Speaker 00:
Yeah, and let me just give you an example from the guidelines.

[00:05:43] Speaker 00:
This is a unique availability to people with zero points.

[00:05:47] Speaker 00:
So this is a guideline calculation that says personally caused.

[00:05:51] Speaker 00:
And if you look at the application note to subsection A6, it says that determining whether someone can avail themselves of this is determined separately from the considerations of 2B1.1.

[00:06:03] Speaker 00:
Now that's for people who engage in fraud and theft offenses.

[00:06:08] Speaker 00:
This is 2S, but not to get too far into the weeds.

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
I'm worried about your time because you're not answering the question.

[00:06:14] Speaker 00:
I'm sorry, but in that instance, you can get enhancements under the guidelines if the offense resulted in substantial financial hardship.

[00:06:25] Speaker 00:
And so here, we have the guidelines saying that's not enough to be precluded from the zero point offender.

[00:06:30] Speaker 00:
You have to personally cause it.

[00:06:32] Speaker 00:
And this is not, this is barrage.

[00:06:33] Speaker 00:
These are cases, Supreme Court cases that talk about what this causation requirement is.

[00:06:38] Speaker 00:
I cited Ninth Circuit cases that talk about causation.

[00:06:42] Speaker 00:
So I don't,

[00:06:43] Speaker 00:
I don't see how this upsets the plain language.

[00:06:47] Speaker 00:
I mean, that's where I begin, personally cause substantial financial hardship.

[00:06:51] Speaker 00:
Let's just take the simple facts of the case.

[00:06:53] Speaker 00:
These people were defrauded long before Mr. Unigwe saw a dollar.

[00:06:58] Speaker 03:
That's the question I was trying to get you to answer two minutes ago.

[00:07:01] Speaker 00:
I'm very sorry.

[00:07:01] Speaker 03:
That's okay.

[00:07:02] Speaker 03:
You don't have to apologize, but I think it's what Judge Fletcher is getting at, too, and I think it's going to be of interest to the panel.

[00:07:07] Speaker 03:
Do you want to speak to it?

[00:07:09] Speaker 00:
Yes, again, to personally cause substantial financial hardship.

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
The question had to do with our case law that recognizes that, as Judge Fletcher put it, the fence, I've got this crime going, and the fence is my long-term fence.

[00:07:22] Speaker 03:
I give an example, which is wire fraud charges are cases where the person money laundering on the back end is viewed as part of the overall fraudulent scheme.

[00:07:32] Speaker 03:
That's what we're trying to get you to speak to.

[00:07:34] Speaker 00:
And recognizing that I'm short on time, I would love the opportunity to supplementary brief this.

[00:07:40] Speaker 00:
The government didn't cite a single case to which we're referring something.

[00:07:43] Speaker 03:
It is our precedent that we're worried about, and so we're trying to figure out how to make sense of this guideline that hasn't been interpreted.

[00:07:49] Speaker 03:
And I appreciate that.

[00:07:50] Speaker 03:
Do you want to save your time for a red bottle?

[00:07:52] Speaker 03:
I don't want to take up any more, but thank you so much.

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
May it please the court, good morning.

[00:08:16] Speaker 02:
My name is Marva DeVitt and I represent the United States, the appellee in this case.

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
This court should not remand.

[00:08:26] Speaker 02:
and vacate the sentence because the district court in this case properly applied the sentencing enhancement and properly found the defendant ineligible as a zero-point offender.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
Now, counsel started his argument with harmless error, so let me start with that.

[00:08:45] Speaker 02:
Remand is not required because if the court should find any error occurred, and I'm not conceding that the district court erred.

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
In fact, the government's position is that the district court properly applied the sentencing guidelines.

[00:09:01] Speaker 02:
There is harmless error in this case.

[00:09:04] Speaker 02:
Your Honor, counsel is pretty much arguing that the district court should have reduced

[00:09:12] Speaker 02:
the offense level to four levels, meaning find his client eligible as a zero point offender, which is a minus two, and not have applied the knowledge and belief enhancement under the provision of 2S1.3.

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
Well, if you look at the pre-sentence report, the probation officer found that the base, which the court adopted, which the government adopted, the probation officer found in the pre-sentence report, and I'm referring to page 17, paragraphs 29 to 36,

[00:09:53] Speaker 02:
In the pre-sentence report, the probation officer first found that there was a base offense level of 6 and an enhancement of plus 14 because the loss in this case of almost a million dollars

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
The corresponding increase is a plus 14.

[00:10:10] Speaker 02:
So 6 plus 14 is 20.

[00:10:13] Speaker 02:
And with the addition of plus 2 and the recognition of acceptance of responsibility, the total offense level is 20.

[00:10:25] Speaker 02:
20 corresponds, Your Honor,

[00:10:32] Speaker 02:
Pardon me, 18, Your Honor, corresponds to a level of 27 to 33 months.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
Pardon me, 20 corresponds to a level of 33 to 41 months.

[00:10:45] Speaker 02:
And the court, in fact, imposed a below guideline sentence of 18 months.

[00:10:52] Speaker 02:
So even if the court were to apply the minus four level increase, that would reduce the level from level 20 to level 16.

[00:11:04] Speaker 02:
That wouldn't make a harmless error.

[00:11:05] Speaker 03:
That wouldn't make it harmless, Sarah.

[00:11:08] Speaker 03:
Our general rule is that if a guideline calculation is wrong, the general rule is that we can't tell what the judge would have done and we send it back.

[00:11:20] Speaker 03:
That is generally what we do.

[00:11:22] Speaker 03:
Opposing counsels argue Munoz because we don't always do that.

[00:11:26] Speaker 03:
Sometimes we can look at a record and see that the guideline calculation didn't make a difference.

[00:11:31] Speaker 03:
So I think that's what you're intending to argue.

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
And could you get to that point, please?

[00:11:35] Speaker 03:
Why is it that we should look at this record and decide that the judge wasn't basing the sentence on the guideline?

[00:11:41] Speaker 02:
Well, the judge said that in his sentencing, and the judge further clarified that when the parties litigated whether or not the defendant should be released pending appeal.

[00:11:52] Speaker 01:
But generally speaking, even if the judge says it doesn't make any difference, it's an unusual case that we don't remat.

[00:12:02] Speaker 01:
And I would submit, Your Honor, this is... Yes, and so why is this an unusual case in the sense required?

[00:12:10] Speaker 03:
Because there's no prejudice in this case, Your Honor.

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
Wait a minute.

[00:12:14] Speaker 03:
The end of moon knows the issue has to be whether we can tell whether the judge bays the sentence on a guideline.

[00:12:20] Speaker 02:
Well, the judge, there's...

[00:12:23] Speaker 02:
The judge did comment in the sentencing hearing that he adopted the pre-sentence report, found the guideline levels to be level 20, didn't follow the government's recommendation to impose a 41-month sentence, but instead departed downwards, and the judge had the discretion to do that because he looked at

[00:12:53] Speaker 02:
the other participants in this offense and found this particular defense and didn't want and actually attach more weight to the factor of there being no disparity in the sentences among the participants.

[00:13:13] Speaker 01:
Before your time runs, let's assume for the moment that we actually get to the question, and it's not a harmless error, how do you address

[00:13:20] Speaker 01:
interpretation of the guideline, what does personally caused mean?

[00:13:26] Speaker 02:
The judge did not clearly err in finding that.

[00:13:30] Speaker 01:
I'm asking you, how would you understand that term?

[00:13:34] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:13:35] Speaker 02:
In this particular case?

[00:13:36] Speaker 01:
Rather, not you personally, how does the government argue that we should understand personally caused?

[00:13:42] Speaker 02:
the defendant's participation in the offense, whether it's a substantive offense, whether it's a conspiracy offense, whether it's an attempt offense.

[00:13:52] Speaker 02:
In this particular case, the defendant pled guilty to a conspiracy to operate.

[00:13:57] Speaker 01:
I understand all of that.

[00:14:00] Speaker 01:
The guideline is, did not personally cause substantial financial hardship.

[00:14:04] Speaker 01:
It's clear that there was substantial financial hardship.

[00:14:08] Speaker 01:
Did he personally cause it?

[00:14:11] Speaker 01:
Now let me ask it to you in a framework that maybe it'll help you respond in the way I'm interested in this.

[00:14:16] Speaker 01:
How far downstream do we go in terms of people who might participate in the proceeds of the crime?

[00:14:23] Speaker 01:
Did they all personally cause the financial hardship?

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:28] Speaker 02:
Why?

[00:14:29] Speaker 02:
Because they were...

[00:14:31] Speaker 02:
It was their bank account that they used, that they knowingly used.

[00:14:36] Speaker 02:
This was the defendant's business account that was used to receive and further transfer almost a million dollars.

[00:14:49] Speaker 03:
The opposing counsel's argument is that once the money was taken away from its owners, that the fraudulent scheme was completed.

[00:14:58] Speaker 03:
And that the downstream, that's what Judge Fletcher is speaking to, right?

[00:15:03] Speaker 03:
Whether you call it money laundering or the fence, in his example, but that's not part of this.

[00:15:08] Speaker 02:
That's incorrect, Your Honor.

[00:15:09] Speaker 03:
Could you please explain what the government's position is on that point?

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
In this particular case, the object of the conspiracy was to fraudulently obtain

[00:15:20] Speaker 02:
monies from victims, in this case some of them were from Guam, and to further use money mules to transfer the money in separate accounts.

[00:15:31] Speaker 02:
I mean, including the defendant's account, and the ultimate object of the conspiracy was to transfer the money outside of the United States where it would be more difficult for the government to try to repatriate the funds.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
In this case, the funds were transferred ultimately to Nigeria.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
This was a Nigerian advance fee scheme, so I think it wasn't clear error on the part of the court below to recognize that this defendant personally caused substantial financial harm.

[00:16:10] Speaker 01:
personally cause has no limitation downstream.

[00:16:13] Speaker 01:
Your argument is given the nature of what he did, the kind of fence that he was, putting the money in the end in Nigeria where it's harder to get back, that caused the loss.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
So he had a contribution to it beyond merely being a sort of a conduit for money that goes somewhere.

[00:16:31] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:31] Speaker 01:
Yes, the argument.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
So that goes to the factual basis in the statement of facts, which you conceded the government would be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and that was that he was engaged in a conspiracy with others known and unknown to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business involving the transportation of funds that were derived from a criminal offense to wit an advanced fee-inheritance scam conducted via the Internet that involved Guam-based business.

[00:16:57] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:16:58] Speaker 03:
Is that any different than the but-for test that your friend on the other side is arguing we applied to interpret this language?

[00:17:07] Speaker 02:
I don't believe it's any different from the but-for test.

[00:17:10] Speaker 02:
I do state in my brief that the appellant relied on out-of-district cases.

[00:17:20] Speaker 02:
I mean, I could say if it were not for Niigwe's participation, the bulk of the money would not have been transferred out of the United States to Nigeria.

[00:17:35] Speaker 03:
How important is it that he pled guilty to a conspiracy charge?

[00:17:38] Speaker 02:
It's very important, Your Honor, because under the law of conspiracy,

[00:17:45] Speaker 02:
co-conspirators are just as responsible for reasonably foreseeable harm in this case.

[00:17:52] Speaker 03:
I mean, that goes hand in hand with victims and losses.

[00:18:06] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor, but I think the object— Transaction business.

[00:18:09] Speaker 03:
The object remained the same.

[00:18:11] Speaker 03:
The object of the conspiracy remained the same.

[00:18:13] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:18:13] Speaker 03:
But I think he stipulated to it.

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
But that's what we're trying to get at.

[00:18:16] Speaker 03:
Where does it end?

[00:18:18] Speaker 02:
I realize it's fact-specific, but the record supports the court's calculation.

[00:18:26] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
I might have interrupted Judge Desai.

[00:18:31] Speaker 03:
Thank you for your patience with our questions.

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
We'll hear from opposing counsel, please.

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
I appreciate the court's concerns.

[00:18:44] Speaker 00:
I wish I was aware of the cases that this could potentially interfere with.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
But the attenuation that would be required to assume that Mr. Unigwe personally caused the loss is unfathomable to me.

[00:18:57] Speaker 00:
The government has gotten up here and made a new argument that, but for Mr. Unigwe's actions,

[00:19:03] Speaker 00:
these funds could have been returned if the government had discovered the fraud because they might be in the U.S.

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
again.

[00:19:07] Speaker 03:
I don't think that's a new argument.

[00:19:08] Speaker 03:
I think she did argue that.

[00:19:10] Speaker 03:
And the problem we're trying to grapple with, and I don't think the briefing did teed up this way, but it is in response to your premise, which is that the fraud was completed.

[00:19:18] Speaker 03:
I think that's your premise, isn't it?

[00:19:22] Speaker 03:
before your client ever did what he did?

[00:19:24] Speaker 00:
I don't think I have to give you a hard and fast yes or no because these people were defrauded of their crime.

[00:19:30] Speaker 03:
My question is wasn't that your argument that the crime was completed?

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
Yes, on the facts that we have it appears that these people

[00:19:38] Speaker 00:
indisputably lost their money and was frauded by Sally Pareda and Ms.

[00:19:44] Speaker 00:
Roberto in Guam at a time and place unknown to me.

[00:19:47] Speaker 03:
Counsel, I'm just asking you—I don't think I asked it very well, apparently.

[00:19:51] Speaker 03:
I'm asking you whether your argument is that that was a completed fraud before your client became involved and did what he did on the back end.

[00:20:00] Speaker 03:
Isn't that your argument?

[00:20:01] Speaker 03:
That's what I understood.

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
I would say that's true, and even if it wasn't, for this—

[00:20:05] Speaker 03:
He has to personally do something.

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
Okay, so let me ask you then the question I asked opposing counsel, please.

[00:20:11] Speaker 03:
How important is it that he pled to a conspiracy charge?

[00:20:16] Speaker 00:
If it was what the government has been arguing below up to here that he was involved in conspiracy to defraud others, everything, I would have an impossible time.

[00:20:26] Speaker 00:
He did not conspire to defraud others.

[00:20:29] Speaker 03:
Can you speak to the part of the plea agreement that I just read into the record?

[00:20:35] Speaker 00:
Yes, Your Honor, and I'll try to pull up the site, but I heard you.

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
Well, it's the part that, it's the factual basis that he stipulated they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:20:47] Speaker 03:
Did he engage in this conspiracy involving transportation of funds and so forth?

[00:20:53] Speaker 00:
Involving transportation of funds from unlawful activity to where the... To where the, right.

[00:20:59] Speaker 03:
Right, right.

[00:21:00] Speaker 03:
So if he entered into that conspiracy to do that, how do we say that the fraud was completed before the money ever got to him?

[00:21:14] Speaker 00:
Well, the government would have had to put more words in, and I am pretty sure that Mr. Unigwe would not have pled guilty to this, because his conspiracy was to transmit funds through an unlicensed business.

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
And there was a lot of—sorry, go ahead.

[00:21:29] Speaker 01:
Could you respond to the back and forth that I had with your adversary a moment ago in a sense of meaning of personally caused?

[00:21:38] Speaker 01:
I'll take it as a given, for purposes of my question, that sometimes way downstream, people who are engaged in the disposition of stolen assets do not personally cause the loss.

[00:21:51] Speaker 01:
Here, however, what your client did was

[00:21:56] Speaker 01:
facilitate the transfer of money to Nigeria so that there's enormous difficulty of getting it back, more difficulty than had he simply deposited it in some banks in Georgia, let's just say United States, state of Georgia.

[00:22:13] Speaker 01:
Why is that not personally caused financial loss?

[00:22:17] Speaker 01:
Because of what he did.

[00:22:18] Speaker 01:
Not merely because he was downstream as part of the process, but because of what he did as a downstream actor.

[00:22:27] Speaker 00:
Judge Fletcher, I appreciate the question, but give me a hearing on this below.

[00:22:31] Speaker 00:
Did that indeed further the fraud or in some way prevent?

[00:22:36] Speaker 00:
These people gave their money up.

[00:22:38] Speaker 00:
The only argument the government has been able to make is that it would be harder for the government to recover that money if they had, once they've discovered the actual fraud.

[00:22:51] Speaker 00:
to say that he has furthered the fraud to answer Judge Christin's question would require something more, some other fact, something that either was agreed to and can't be disputed or requires some sort of hearing below.

[00:23:03] Speaker 00:
I appreciate the hypothetical, but.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
I'm sympathetic to your argument that these things were not fully developed below and maybe not fully developed in the briefing to us.

[00:23:12] Speaker 01:
I get that.

[00:23:15] Speaker 01:
But let's just indulge me with,

[00:23:20] Speaker 01:
I'm trying to understand what the personally caused would mean.

[00:23:28] Speaker 01:
It doesn't require any special briefing to know the fact that what he did was he takes the money and he facilitates his transfer to Nigeria.

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
And it doesn't take any great record development to tell us that it's harder to get money back from Nigeria than from a bank in the United States or from a resident in the United States.

[00:23:48] Speaker 01:
So I think he, if we're just talking facts, not yet law, but facts, what he did was make it harder to get the money back.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
Now did he then, here comes the language, did he personally cause substantial financial hardship when what he did made it harder to get the money back?

[00:24:10] Speaker 00:
Fair enough.

[00:24:11] Speaker 00:
Assuming those facts that I don't agree to or stipulate to today.

[00:24:17] Speaker 00:
causation.

[00:24:18] Speaker 00:
As I've briefed from the Supreme Court and has been adopted by the Ninth Circuit, there is a but-for analysis, approximate causation.

[00:24:29] Speaker 00:
But for Mr. Unigwe's actions,

[00:24:32] Speaker 00:
did those people suffer substantial financial hardship?

[00:24:36] Speaker 00:
That's how I'd read the personally causing.

[00:24:40] Speaker 00:
But for his actions, the answer is no, unless we engage in a hypothetical and yet to be developed understanding that those people would not have been deprived of their

[00:24:51] Speaker 00:
financial resources, but for him sending this to Nigeria.

[00:24:55] Speaker 00:
I know we can say the word Nigeria, and that brings to mind a whole bunch of things that make it sound impossible and scary to recover.

[00:25:02] Speaker 00:
But I struggle with it, and I appreciate the question.

[00:25:05] Speaker 00:
And I do take your point that the record is undeveloped on this point.

[00:25:10] Speaker 00:
But even if it was, even if that was an impossible, I'm sorry, you can stop me.

[00:25:13] Speaker 00:
You're spectacularly over your time.

[00:25:15] Speaker 03:
Do you have anything else that you wanted to tell us?

[00:25:17] Speaker 03:
no your honor other than this is just this is an important case