that a transaction is designed to achieve a certain effect is tantamount to declaring that the individual who conducted the transaction intended to achieve that outcome. See United States v. Willey, 57 F.3d 1374, 1389 n. 29 (5th Cir. 1995) (implying that testimony regarding whether transactions were "designed to conceal" is forbidden under Rule 704(b)). True, a witness may permissibly testify that the effect of a transaction is to conceal, see ibid. (suggesting that an expert witness may properly testify that certain transactions "concealed" the source of the funds), but that is not what Simpson did when he stated that the intent of the transactions was to mask the source or nature of the funds at issue. Thus, it appears that the district court abused its discretion in admitting certain portions of Simpson's testimony.

However, reversal is not appropriate in this case, as any improprieties in Simpson's testimony were harmless. The jurors were faced with evidence of an expansive and convoluted tangle of financial transactions, evidence that would, standing alone, be more than sufficient basis to support the conclusion that Warshak's intent in making the charged transactions was to conceal the source of the funds. See Garcia-Emanuel, 14 F.3d at 1476 (holding that intent to conceal can be inferred from "a series of unusual financial moves [culminating] in the transaction"). Furthermore, although Simpson did remark that the transactions were conducted with a certain intent, the government's attorneys later clarified before the jury that they were "only asking for [his] opinion with respect to the transactions, and [that they were not] asking for [him] to make any reference or render any opinion with respect to any person's state of mind or intent[.]" Additionally, as the government notes, Simpson's final statement to the jury on direct examination was that the " effect [of the transactions] was to conceal." We therefore hold that reversal on the basis of Simpson's statements is inappropriate.

Reversal of Warshak and TCI's convictions, that is. For the reasons discussed above, there are independent grounds to reverse Harriet's convictions.

K. Conspiracy to Obstruct an FTC Proceeding ( 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1505)

Warshak argues that the government failed to prove him guilty of conspiracy to obstruct an FTC proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 1505. To obtain a conviction for that offense, the government must demonstrate three elements: "(1) the existence of an agreement to violate [§ 1505]; (2) knowledge and intent to join the conspiracy; and (3) an overt act constituting actual participation in the conspiracy." United States v. Hughes, 505 F.3d 578, 593 (6th Cir. 2007). To prove a violation of § 1505, the government must show: "(1) that there was an agency proceeding; (2) that the defendant was aware of that proceeding; and (3) that the defendant `intentionally endeavored corruptly to influence, obstruct or impede the pending proceeding.'" United States v. Bhagat, 436 F.3d 1140, 1147 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Price, 951 F.2d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 1991)).

The government contends that the elements of the offense are somewhat different, citing United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739, 761-62 (6th Cir. 2006). However, 18 U.S.C. § 1505 appears to set forth two separate offenses, and Blackwell does not pertain to the form of obstruction that is at issue in the present case.

1. Background

In summer 2003, the FTC began investigating Berkeley, initially focusing on the claims made in Berkeley's advertisements and later focusing on the auto-ship program. In connection with the investigation — which had the potential to result in a substantial money judgment against both Berkeley and Warshak — the FTC sought certain financial information from Berkeley, eventually providing the company with a number of financial-disclosure forms in late 2004.

In summer 2004, before the forms had been sent, Warshak began planning his estate with the assistance of Chris Sega, a partner at an outside law firm. The planning culminated in the creation and funding of two trusts — one for Warshak's wife and one for his children. At Warshak's trial, William Bertemes, Warshak's accountant, testified that the timing of the estate planning was dictated by the FTC litigation. According to Bertemes, the trusts were created to remove Warshak's personal assets from the FTC's reach.

2. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Warshak argues that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient because it did not show that he intended for the creation of the trusts to impede the ongoing FTC proceeding. In support of his argument, he points to email traffic in which he suggested that "the FTC thing [would] be okay" and that he did not want to "tie up too much money in intricate trusts." He also argues that he eventually disclosed the existence of the trusts — voluntarily. Finally, he argues that the creation of the trusts was motivated in large part by the advice of his lawyers, who urged him "to divide his assets with his spouse for estate planning purposes." Appellant's Br. at 146.

Though the evidence in this case is extremely close, given the stringency of the standard set forth in Jackson, we affirm Warshak's conviction. While there is certainly language in Warshak's emails indicating that he may not have been motivated by a desire to obstruct the FTC investigation, there is also competent evidence in the record that his decision to create and fund the trusts was, at least at one point, motivated by the desire to shield his assets from the FTC. Bertemes testified that the creation of the funds was justified as an estate-planning measure but was in fact undertaken for "litigation" purposes. In addition, though Warshak was initially hesitant to place money in the trusts, he eventually endowed them with over $14 million, money that his emails indicate he was extremely reluctant to part with. Notably, the transfers took place just one week after the FTC sent financial disclosure forms to Berkeley. Although Warshak did eventually disclose the existence of the trusts, that does not mean that he was always intent on doing so. Furthermore, when disclosure was finally made, more than seven months later, the assets had already been frozen in connection with the government's criminal investigation into Berkeley's operations. Thus, based on the evidence available at trial, a reasonable juror could conclude that Warshak entered into an agreement to impede the FTC proceeding.

The Warshak family accounts were all frozen pursuant to seizure warrants.

Warshak argues that he should not have been convicted because his actions did not have the "natural and probable effect" of undermining the FTC proceeding. In making this argument, he points to the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Aguilar, 515 U.S. 593, 599, 115 S.Ct. 2357, 132 L.Ed.2d 520 (1995). There, the Court noted that, "if the defendant lacks knowledge that his actions are likely to affect the judicial proceeding, he lacks the . . . intent to obstruct [required under 18 U.S.C. § 1503]." Ibid. But Aguilar involved obstruction of a judicial proceeding, not obstruction of an agency proceeding. Thus, we find Aguilar inapposite. See Bhagat, 436 F.3d at 1147-48 (declining to read an additional element into § 1505 on the basis of the Supreme Court's decision in Aguilar).

L. Disclosure of Searches Seizures

Before trial, the defendants filed a motion asking that the district court "order the government to affirm or deny whether any interceptions, searches, seizures, orders, or subpoenas of their communications ha[d] occurred." The district court denied the motion, explaining that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 only requires the government to disclose certain types of evidence. The district court also noted that the government had indicated it would "turn over at the appropriate time any Jencks Act or Brady materials."

The defendants now argue that the district court erred in denying their motion. They claim that "Rule 16 provide[s] a floor, but not a ceiling, on the government's disclosure obligations. . . ." Appellant's Br. at 148. In addition, they argue that, without disclosure of the government's investigative practices, they would have no way of knowing whether their Fourth Amendment rights were being trampled. Invoking the government's "almost limitless technological capacity to secretly search computers and electronic communications," the defendants essentially argue that discovery should serve as another check on the government's electronic incursions into the privacy of citizens.

But the defendants cite no authority in support of their position. There is, however, authority for the proposition that the government's discovery obligations are limited. In United States v. Presser, this court held that "Rule 16 requires the government to disclose to the defense before trial only specific categories of evidence." 844 F.2d 1275, 1284 (6th Cir. 1988). Those categories include:

prior statements of the defendant, the defendant's prior criminal record, documents, photographs, or tangible objects, which are within the custody or control of the government and which are material to the defense or intended for use by the government in its case-in-chief at trial or which were obtained from or belong to the defendant, and the results of any mental or physical examinations performed on the defendant which are material to the defense or which are intended for use by the government as evidence in its case-in-chief at trial.

Id. at 1284-85. Furthermore, the Presser court held that "the discovery afforded by Rule 16 is limited to the evidence referred to in its express provisions." Id. at 1285. Consequently, "[t]he rule provides no authority for compelling the pre-trial disclosure of Brady material, or of any other evidence not specifically mentioned by the rule." Ibid. (internal citations omitted). In light of this precedent, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendants' discovery motion. See Gray, 521 F.3d at 529 (holding that a district court's discovery rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion).

M. Sentencing Issues

1. Background

The defendants were sentenced on August 27, 2008. Prior to their individual hearings, the district court summoned all of the defendants and explained the amount of loss that it would use for purposes of determining the applicable offense level under USSG § 2B1.1(b). The district court's explanation went as follows:

[The] [d]efendants essentially attempt[] to minimize their conduct based on the relative number of complaints to their overall sales based on the number of refunds made. Yet, their assertions are belied by the tens of thousands of claimants in the consumer class action against Berkeley settled in a Montgomery County Common Pleas Court and by Berkeley's settlement by the Attorneys General for Ohio, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. This was a series of massive fraud schemes that affected thousands of individuals.

The Court recognizes the difficulty in determining the amount of loss suffered by the victims of the defendants' various fraudulent activities.

Since the amount of loss reasonably cannot be determined, the Court will look rather to the amount of gain resulting from such fraudulent activity. The government contends such gain amounts to in excess of $411 million dollars, which represents the net sales, being the gross sales less returns, allowances and refunds during the period of the conspiracies.

The cooperating defendants, however, admitted they defrauded consumers of over $100 million dollars. Such admission of wrongful gain do[es] not cover the entire time span of the conspiracies.

The defendants who were tried claim the amount of loss cannot be accurately determined, nor have they assisted the Court in determining the amount of loss the victims suffered. The Court agrees that it would be speculative to estimate the amount of loss in light of the number of claims that have been filed against Berkeley.

Thus, under the advisory notes, the Court may look to gain in arriving at the appropriate figure for sentencing purposes. To be conservative, the Court will accept the $100 million figure as the appropriate figure amounting to gain for sentencing purposes, based on the admissions of cooperating witnesses.

The Court further finds that restitution to the victims of defendants' conduct [is] impractical because it's too difficult to identify the victims and speculative to determine how much loss each victim actually suffered.

Appellant's App'x at 108-10 (emphasis added).

Thereafter, the defendants were sentenced individually. At Warshak's sentencing hearing, the district court inexplicably abandoned its original loss determination, declaring that Warshak would be held responsible for $411 million in losses. The district court offered no justification for deviating from its previous determination that the amount of loss would be set at $100 million. The district court then determined Warshak's Guidelines range to be life imprisonment, based on a total offense level of 49 and a Criminal History Category of I.

Harriet was sentenced the same day. Like Warshak, Harriet was held accountable for more than $400 million in losses. The district court determined that her advisory Guidelines range was also life imprisonment. Ultimately, Harriet received a sentence of 24 months.

2. Amount of Loss

The defendants argue that the district court erred in determining the amount of under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(P). We review a district court's determination of the amount of loss attributable to a defendant for clear error. United States v. Jordan, 544 F.3d 656, 671 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Tudeme, 457 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2006)). By contrast, we review the district court's methodology for calculating loss de novo. United States v. Erpenbeck, 532 F.3d 423, 433 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Rothwell, 387 F.3d 579, 582 (6th Cir. 2004)). An error with respect to the loss calculation is a procedural infirmity that typically requires remand. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) (holding that improperly calculating the Guidelines range is a serious procedural error).

In United States v. Triana, this court provided an overview of how loss should be calculated for purposes of determining a defendant's adjusted offense level. As we explained,

U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 is the Guideline used by courts in determining "loss" for fraud cases. The Guideline enhances a defendant's sentence to correlate to the amount of loss caused by his fraud. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1). Application Note 2 to § 2B1.1 provides guidance for the determination of loss. The application note states that "loss is the greater of actual loss or intended loss." Id. § 2B1.1, cmt. (n. 2) (2002). "[A]ctual loss" is "the reasonably foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the offense," and "intended loss" is "the pecuniary harm that was intended to result from the offense" and "includes intended pecuniary harm that would have been impossible or unlikely to occur." Id. § 2B1.1, cmt. (n. 2(A)(i) and (ii)). In situations where the losses occasioned by financial frauds are not easy to quantify, the district court need only make a reasonable estimate of the loss, given the available information. Id. § 2B1.1, cmt. (n. 2(C)). Such estimates "need not be determined with precision." United States v. Miller, 316 F.3d 495, 503 (4th Cir. 2003).

468 F.3d 308, 319-20 (6th Cir. 2006) (footnotes omitted). It should also be noted that, in cases where the amount of loss cannot reasonably be determined, the court shall instead use the gain that resulted from the offense when determining the applicable enhancement. USSG § 2B1.1, cmt. n. 3(B) ("The court shall use the gain that resulted from the offense as an alternative measure of loss only if there is a loss but it reasonably cannot be determined."); see United States v. Parrish, 84 F.3d 816, 819 (6th Cir. 1996) (employing gain as a proxy for loss in the context of § 2F1.1).

The defendants now argue that the district court's loss determination was erroneous for four reasons. First, they contend that "because loss could have been reasonably calculated, it was error to substitute [the] defendants' gain[.]" Appellant's Br. at 155. Second, they assert that "even if it were permissible to look to [the] defendants' gain as the proxy for loss, the finding that all of Berkeley's revenues were fraudulently derived was manifestly contrary to the evidence[.]" Ibid. Third, they argue that "the court erroneously placed the burden on [them] to prove that Berkeley revenues were not fraudulently derived[.]" Id. at 155-56. And fourth, they contend that the district court "did not adequately explain the rationale for its loss/gain calculation." Id. at 156.

Ultimately, we think it best to remand in this case because the district court's explanation of its loss determination was inadequate. As the defendants note, the district court did little to explain how it arrived at $411 million as the amount of loss, other than to suggest that the figure represented Berkeley's net sales. Further complicating matters is the fact that the district court originally stated that it would place the amount of gain at $100 million. Because the amount of loss was a contested issue, the district court should have engaged in a more thorough explication of its calculation, and it also should have explicitly referenced the evidence upon which it relied. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(i)(3)(B); United States v. White, 492 F.3d 380, 415 (6th Cir. 2007). On remand, the district court should explain why it silently renounced its decision to hold the defendants responsible for only $100 million in losses.

Furthermore, we note that it may be improper to conclude that all of Berkeley's revenues constitute actual loss for purposes of § 2B1.1(b)(1). True, the evidence suggests that Berkeley's operations — even in the later years — were permeated with fraud, but there is no evidence suggesting that literally every customer was deceived by Berkeley's misrepresentations. In addition, there is evidence in the record that at least $25 million in sales were conducted at retail outlets. This evidence appears to indicate that some of Berkeley's sales did not actually correspond to fraudulent losses. Of course, a district court may rely on intended loss when determining the amount of loss under the Guidelines, but the question of intended loss is one we leave to the district court.

The defendants also point to evidence that "[a]pproximately 700,000 customers purchased products with no continuity program." Reply Br. at 78.

3. Substantive Reasonableness

Warshak also contends that his 25-year sentence was substantively unreasonable. However, because the district court erred with respect to the loss calculation, we need not reach this argument. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S.Ct. 586 (noting that review for substantive reasonableness is necessary only if the district court's decision is procedurally sound).

N. Forfeiture Issues

1. Background

On February 25, 2008, the trial proceeded to the forfeiture phase, during which the jury was asked to determine whether the government had established the requisite nexus between certain assets enumerated in the indictment — including homes, cars, and bank accounts — and the offenses committed by the defendants. The forfeiture phase lasted two days, after which the jury found that the requisite nexus existed with respect to all 33 of the assets in question.

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.2(b)(5)(B), "[i]f a party timely requests to have the jury determine forfeiture, the government must submit a proposed Special Verdict Form listing each property subject to forfeiture and asking the jury to determine whether the government has established the requisite nexus between the property and the offense committed by the defendant."

On May 14, 2008, the district court conducted a hearing, at which it determined the extent of the forfeiture. Thereafter, the district court held "the [d]efendants involved in the mail, wire, and bank fraud conspiracy . . . jointly and severally liable for $459,540,000.00 in a proceeds money judgment and [d]efendants Steven Warshak, Harriet Warshak, and Paul Kellogg . . . jointly and severally liable for $44,876,781.68 in a money laundering judgment."

2. Exclusion of Evidence

The defendants argue that the district court erroneously excluded certain evidence from both the forfeiture phase of the trial and the subsequent hearing to determine the amount of forfeiture. We review district court evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. United States v. White, 563 F.3d 184, 191 (6th Cir. 2009). "Broad discretion is given to district courts in determinations of admissibility based on considerations of relevance and prejudice, and those decisions will not be lightly over-ruled." United States v. Jackson-Randolph, 282 F.3d 369, 376 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing United States v. Hawkins, 969 F.2d 169, 174 (6th Cir. 1992)). "If we find an abuse of discretion, we [will] reverse the district court's judgment only if the error was not harmless." Ibid. (citing United States v. Carter, 969 F.2d 197, 201 (6th Cir. 1992)).

During the forfeiture trial, the defendants attempted to introduce certain evidence, which they contended would demonstrate that, from late 2003 onward, a substantial number of Berkeley's sales were legitimate. That evidence included: notebooks of marketing materials and boxes of positive customer testimonials; examples of compliance, training, and chargeback-reduction plans; and the results of a statistical study of Berkeley's sales calls, which purportedly revealed that after 2004 disclosure was made in the vast majority of cases. When this evidence was offered, the government objected, arguing that the defendants were simply trying to relitigate the issue of guilt. The defense countered with the argument that the legitimacy of Berkeley's sales was highly relevant to the issue of nexus. After hearing the arguments, the district court sided with the government, ruling that the evidence was irrelevant.

Before the subsequent forfeiture hearing, at which the district court determined the amount of forfeiture, the defendants again tried to introduce testimony relating to disclosure of the auto-ship program during sales calls. The district court excluded the evidence. Because the defendants do not develop their argument with respect to this evidence, it is waived. See Slater v. Potter, 28 Fed.Appx. 512, 513 (6th Cir. 2002). In any event, even if the argument were in play, we would find it unpersuasive in light of the considerations addressed below.

Ultimately, the district court's analysis on the issue of relevance appears to be sound. As the district court noted, the jury, in reaching its verdict in the guilt phase, determined that the defendants had engaged in certain illegal conduct. The remaining question was whether that illegal conduct had a link to the assets listed in the indictment. Thus, the defendants' attempts to show that certain sales were not the result of illegal conduct was tanta-mount to reopening this issue of guilt; the defendants were seeking to show that certain acts were not unlawful, which was no longer a live issue. As a result, the district court's decision to exclude the evidence was not abuse of discretion.

3. Sufficiency of the Evidence

The defendants also argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the forfeiture judgments. In reviewing this claim, we are mindful that "[t]he Government must prove forfeiture by a pre-ponderance of the evidence." United States v. Jones, 502 F.3d 388, 391 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Hall, 411 F.3d 651, 654-55 (6th Cir. 2005)). "[T]he district court's findings of fact are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard and the question of whether those facts are sufficient to constitute a proper criminal forfeiture is reviewed de novo." United States v. O'Dell, 247 F.3d 655, 679 (6th Cir. 2001). The district court's interpretation of the forfeiture laws is also reviewed de novo. Ibid.

a. Proceeds Forfeiture

The defendants argue that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the entirety of Berkeley's revenues — $459,540,000 — constituted the proceeds of fraud. In making this argument, the defendants point, again, to the "massive ameliorative efforts directed at bringing [Berkeley's] marketing practices into full legal and regulatory compliance." Appellant's Br. at 177 n. 70. Essentially, the defendants argue that, from late 2003 onward, Berkeley was a legitimate operation, untainted by any potential fraud that may have characterized its early history. The defendants also note that approximately $25 million in sales occurred at retail outlets, such as Wal-Mart and GNC. These sales, the defendants contend, were surely legitimate, as were sales of many other products. Finally, the defendants contend that the bank-fraud scheme could not have supported a finding that all of Berkeley's proceeds were the result of unlawful activities, as the conduct alleged in the bank-fraud counts ended in January 2004. Appellant's Br. at 178. At bottom, the defendants fault the district court for simply accepting the government's assertion that everything was attributable to fraud.

To demonstrate that certain property is subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2), the government must show that the property constituted, or was derived from, "proceeds the [defendant] obtained directly or indirectly, as the result of [certain illegal conduct or a conspiracy to commit certain illegal conduct]." Similarly, under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), the government must show that the property "constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to [certain illegal conduct or a conspiracy to commit certain illegal conduct]." Notably, both statutes require forfeiture of proceeds that result from conspiracies.

For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 981, "the term `proceeds' means property of any kind obtained directly or indirectly, as the result of the commission of the offense giving rise to forfeiture, and any property traceable thereto, and is not limited to the net gain or profit realized from the offense." Id. § 981(a)(2)(A).

In this case, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the entirety of Berkeley's revenues are proceeds that resulted, whether directly or indirectly, from unlawful activity. First, as has been previously discussed, there is copious evidence indicating that Berkeley executives concocted false advertisements, concealed the existence of Berkeley's auto-ship program, limited refunds, and fed false information to its merchant banks. While the defendants contend that Berkeley's business practices were reformed in 2004, there is also evidence that things remained largely the same. For example, numerous executives testified that any "massive ameliorative efforts" were simply cosmetic changes instituted to keep the auto-ship program from getting shut down. According to various Berkeley insiders, though the existence of the auto-ship program was eventually disclosed during sales calls, the disclosures were meant to be ineffective. Furthermore, there is evidence that disclosure of the auto-ship program on the company's websites was erratic, and there is also evidence that, when it was present, the online disclosure language was confusing and deceptive. Thus, it can be concluded that, even after the company attempted to affect an air of legitimacy, the very nucleus of its business model remained rotten and malignant. In the words of the district court, there is evidence "that the entire operation was permeated with fraud."

The enduring nature of the corruption can also be inferred from a number of 2005 emails that Warshak sent to Shelley Kinmon. In one, Warshak pitched a new claim that "[E]nzyte is a powerful blood flow stimulator for peak circulation and fuller, larger erections — up to 25% larger according to an independent customer study." In another, Warshak implored Kinmon and the sales staff to emulate the creative process that led to Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Kubla Khan." To wit, Warshak suggested: "THROW A SALES COPY PARTY — GET 3-4 BOTTLES OF WINE, A LARGE BONG, AND AN [8]-BALL — THEN SIT AROUND AND MAKE SHIT UP!! — THAT'S WHAT I DO. . . . BUT WRITE IT ALL DOWN OR YOU'LL FORGET IT THE NEXT DAY."

Moreover, the argument that certain sales were legitimate gains no traction. Any money generated through these potentially legitimate sales is nonetheless subject to forfeiture, as the sales all resulted "directly or indirectly" from a conspiracy to commit fraud. See 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2). The same can be said for any sales that occurred at retail because those sales were the outgrowth of Berkeley's fraudulent beginnings. Furthermore, it could be argued that any sales post-dating the bank-fraud counts were proceeds resulting indirectly from fraud, as Berkeley would have been unable to conduct credit-card transactions if the chargeback-manipulation scheme had never been implemented. As a consequence, forfeiture of Berkeley's revenues, including money generated through supposedly legitimate transactions, was appropriate.

b. Money Laundering Forfeiture

The defendants also assert that the evidence was inadequate to support the money-laundering forfeiture judgment. In making this assertion, they again allege a "complete lack of evidence of any fraudulent conduct by Warshak or anyone at Berkeley after 2003." Appellant's Br. at 179. For the reasons discussed above, this argument gains no traction; abundant evidence indicates that the scheme persisted after the so-called "ameliorative efforts."

However, because Harriet's convictions on the money-laundering counts were improper, the evidence is necessarily insufficient to support a money-laundering forfeiture judgment against her. Warshak, though, remains jointly and severally liable for the entire $44,876,781.68 money laundering judgment.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM Steven Warshak's convictions. We also AFFIRM the forfeiture judgments against him, but we VACATE his 25-year sentence and REMAND for resentencing. We also AFFIRM TCI's convictions. In addition, we AFFIRM Harriet Warshak's convictions for conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and bank fraud (Count 1); and bank fraud (Count 27). However, we REVERSE her convictions for conspiracy to commit money laundering (Counts 30-31) and money laundering (Counts 99-101, 107), and we VACATE her sentence and REMAND. Lastly, we AFFIRM the proceeds-money forfeiture judgement against her, but we REVERSE the money-laundering forfeiture judgment against her.