UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert COPLAN, Martin Nissenbaum, Richard Shapiro, Brian Vaughn, Charles Bolton, Defendants-Appellants, David L. Smith, Defendant, 703 F.3d 46

Judge KEARSE dissents in

part in a separate opinion. JOSÉ A. CABRANES, Circuit Judge: We consider here the fate of four partners and employees of Ernst & Young, LLP (“E & Y”), one of the largest accounting firms in the world, who appeal their convictions in connection with the development and defense of five “tax shelters” that were sold or implemented by E & Y between 1999 and 2001. At issue, among other things, is the scope of criminal liability in a conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the criminal intent of certain defendants.

The defendants in these consolidated actions are three tax attorneys, Robert Co-plan, Martin Nissenbaum, and Richard Shapiro, and one accountant, Brian Vaughn, formerly employed by E & Y. A fifth defendant, Charles Bolton, was an investment advisor who owned and operated various asset-management companies. Coplan, Nissenbaum, Shapiro, and Vaughn (jointly, the “trial defendants”) appeal from separate judgments of conviction entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sidney H.

Stein, Judge), on February 17, 2010, following a 10-week jury trial on charges of conspiracy to defraud the Government, tax evasion, obstruction of the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), and false statements to the IRS. Bolton appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by the District Court on April 14, 2010, following his plea of guilty to a single conspiracy charge. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the convictions of Shapiro and Nissenbaum on Counts One, Two, and Three, and the conviction of Nissenbaum on Count Four, and we affirm the convictions of Coplan and Vaughn in their entirety.

We affirm the District Court’s order sentencing Bolton principally to 15 months of imprisonment, but we vacate and remand the portion of the judgment that imposed a fine of $3 million. BACKGROUND The evidence underlying the convictions, viewed “in the light most favorable to the prosecution,” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979), established the following facts. I.

Facts In 1998, E & Y formed a new group tasked with designing tax strategies, or “tax shelters,” to market to “high net worth” individuals who were seeking to shelter at least $20 million from income tax liability. Originally called the “VIPER” Group (for “Value Ideas Produce Extraordinary Results”), the group was renamed “SISG” (for “Strategic Individual Solutions Group”) in 2000. Coplan, Nis-senbaum, Shapiro, and Vaughn were the core members of the VIPER Group/SISG.

The facts of this case principally relate to the design, implementation, and audit defense of four tax shelters developed by the VIPER Group/SISG: the

(1) Contingent Deferred Swap (“CDS”);

(2) Currency Options Bring Reward Alternatives (“COBRA”);

(3) CDS Add-On (“Add-On”); and

(4) Personal Investment Corporation (“PICO”) shelters. Coplan, Nissenbaum, and Shapiro also personally invested in a fifth tax shelter, known as the “E & Y 11 Transaction” or “Tradehill,” which was not marketed to E & Y clients. Although the IRS audited all five tax shelters, only the Add-On shelter was later subject to tax evasion charges.

With respect to the other four tax shelters, the charged conduct principally relates to alleged false or misleading statements made by the defendants in connection with the IRS audits, as demonstrated by the defendants’ internal correspondence, deposition testimony, and written submissions to the IRS. Since the details of the tax shelters and the supporting tax law are largely irrelevant on appeal, we briefly summarize the (necessarily oversimplified) operation of these transactions as follows.

A.The CDS Shelter The CDS shelter was a tax “deferral and conversion” strategy that allowed a taxpayer to convert ordinary income into long-term capital gains and defer tax liability to the year after the income was earned. The taxpayer would form a securities trading partnership in which the taxpayer served as limited partner and another entity served as general partner. The partnership would then engage in a large volume of short-term trading and invest in an 18-month swap transaction. Because of the “trader” status of the partnership, swap payments made by the partnership were deducted as business expenses.

If the swap was terminated early (ie., before maturity), but after 12 months, the payments received by the partnership were taxed at the (significantly lower) capital gains rate rather than the ordinary income rate. Treatment of these payments as capital gains depended upon the “early termination” of the swap, which allowed the payment to be characterized as a “termination payment” under the applicable regulations.

B.The COBRA Shelter The COBRA shelter was a tax “elimination” strategy that involved creating an asset with a high “basis” for tax purposes, which the taxpayer could then sell and generate a deductible loss. The taxpayer would create a limited liability company (“LLC”) that would purchase a pair of offsetting “digital” foreign currency options that involved a bet on how a particular foreign currency would perform against the U.S. dollar in 30 days. Prior to the maturity of the options, the taxpayer would contribute the option contracts to an investment partnership.

After the options expired, the investment partnership was liquidated and the taxpayer’s interest in the partnership was transferred to a Sub-chapter S corporation (“S corporation”), which would sell the assets and realize a deductible tax loss. C.The Add-On Shelter The Add-On shelter was a tax strategy marketed as a means to defer indefinitely income tax liability on capital gains, including the capital gains generated in the second year of the CDS strategy. Like COBRA, Add-On involved the purchase of offsetting digital option pairs, followed by a series of transactions designed to generate a tax loss.

The offsetting options were structured so that there was a “one-pip” gap between their strike prices, so that, in a theoretical “home run” scenario, a taxpayer could make a multimillion dollar profit. Unlike CDS and COBRA, however, there was no reasonable possibility of earning a profit from Add-On apart from the “home run” scenario, since the Add-On fee structure required payments to E & Y and the entity acting as general partner that exceeded the potential payoff. As a result, Add-On was the sole tax shelter developed by the defendants that was subject to substantive tax evasion charges. D.

The PICO Shelter The PICO shelter was a tax deferral and conversion strategy that involved an investmént in an S corporation with another shareholder. The taxpayer would purchase 20% of the stock of the S corporation, while another person associated with the Bricolage investment firm (which helped to implement the transaction) would purchase the remaining 80% interest. The S corporation (also known as the Personal Investment Corporation, or “PICO”) would then purchase so-called “straddles,” financial instruments that generated offsetting gains and losses on foreign currencies, interest rates, or commodities.

After building up a sufficient inventory of “losing” bets, the PICO would buy out the 80% shareholder. Under a tax regulation, the 80% shareholder would be allocated his share of the gains recognized by the PICO up to the time of redemption, and all the gains and losses recognized thereafter (i.e., most of the losses) would be allocated to the taxpayer. After contributing additional assets to the PICO, the taxpayer could then take the desired deduction. E. The Tradehill Shelter Unlike the other four tax shelters, the Tradehill shelter was marketed only to E & Y partners.

After E & Y sold the consulting arm of its business to a French company called Cap Gemini in 2000, each E & Y partner received an allocation of Cap Gemini stock. Eleven E & Y partners participated in Tradehill, which was designed to eliminate the tax due on the income they recognized from the Cap Gemini transaction. Like COBRA and Add-On, Tradehill involved the formation of numerous corporate entities and the contribution of option pairs from one entity to another.

We note that similar tax shelters were marketed and sold by other major accounting firms and law firms as part of a lucrative “tax avoidance” practice that flourished in the late 1990s. See generally The Role of Professional Firms in the U.S. Tax Shelter Industry, S.Rep. No. 109-54, at 3 (2005). In February 2000, the IRS created the Office of Tax Shelter Analysis and subsequently issued a series of notices directed at “abusive” tax shelters.

An April 2005 report issued by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs stated that “[ujnder current law, no single standard defines an abusive tax shelter.” Id. The report further noted that “[o]ver the past 10 years, Federal statutes and regulations prohibiting illegal tax shelters have undergone repeated revision to clarify and strengthen them.” Id.

Although this case does not require us to comment on the substance of those revisions, we think it useful to acknowledge that the law with respect to tax shelters has evolved since E & Y formed the VIPER Group in 1998. II. Procedural History A federal grand jury returned a sealed indictment on May 22, 2007, and a superseding indictment on February 19, 2008, charging the defendants in thirteen counts with a wide-ranging conspiracy to defraud the United States through the development, sale, and implementation of the E & Y tax shelters.

The superseding indictment was redacted to seven counts (the “Redacted Indictment”) for the trial of Coplan, Nissenbaum, Shapiro, and Vaughn. Count One of the Redacted Indictment charged each trial defendant with a conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, with three objectives: (1) to defraud the United States by impairing the lawful governmental functions of the IRS (known as a “Klein conspiracy,” see United States v.

Klein, 247 F.2d 908, 915 (2d Cir.1957)); (2) to commit tax evasion in connection with the Add-On tax shelter, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201; and (3) to make false statements to the IRS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Counts Two and Three charged each trial defendant with tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, in connection with the Add-On tax shelter. Counts Four and Five charged Nissenb-aum and Coplan, respectively, with obstructing the IRS, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212.

Counts Six and Seven charged Vaughn and Coplan, respectively, with making false statements to the IRS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Trial commenced on March 3, 2009, with the beginning of jury selection. At trial, the Government sought to demonstrate that the defendants conspired to conceal the true nature of the five tax shelters by creating a variety of “cover stories” regarding the purported business purpose of the shelters, when in fact the shelters were motivated solely by a desire to avoid taxes.

In essence, the Government sought to demonstrate that the defendants hid the truth from the IRS by withholding information and making affirmative misstatements. On May 7, 2009, the jury returned a general verdict of guilty on all counts.

On January 21 and 22, 2010, the District Court sentenced the trial defendants principally as follows: Coplan was sentenced to 36 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $75,000 fine; Nissenbaum was sentenced to 30 months of imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and a $100,000 fine; Shapiro was sentenced to 28 months of imprisonment, two years of supervised release, and a $100,000 fine; and Vaughn was sentenced to 20 months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. The judgments of conviction for the trial defendants were entered on January 28, 2010.

Prior to trial, on January 22, 2009, Bolton pleaded guilty to a Superseding Information charging him with a single count of conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, having three objectives: (1) to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, defeating, and obstructing the lawful governmental functions of the IRS (the so-called “Klein conspiracy”); (2) to make false statements to the IRS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001; and (3) to corruptly obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a).

On April 14, 2010, the District Court entered a judgment of conviction sentencing Bolton principally to 15 months of imprisonment and a $3 million fine. The defendants have remained free on bail pending the resolution of this appeal. DISCUSSION The defendants raise no fewer than ten challenges to their respective convictions and sentences on appeal, which we briefly summarize as follows: (1) the Government’s Klein conspiracy theory was legally invalid, (2) there was insufficient evidence to support (

a) the convictions of Shapiro and Nissenbaum on Count One, the conspiracy charge, (

b) the convictions of Shapiro and Nissenbaum on Counts Two and Three, the tax evasion charges, and (

c) Nissenbaum’s conviction on Count Four, the obstruction charge, (3) the District Court erred in finding that venue was proper for Count Six, which charged Vaughn with false statements to the IRS, (4) the District Court erred by admitting the testimony of alleged coconspirator Graham Taylor, a tax attorney who committed a variety of crimes involving tax shelters unrelated to this case, (5) the District Court erred in admitting the out-of-court statements of more than 20 alleged coconspirators, (6) the District Court erred in excluding portions of Coplan’s and Vaughn’s deposition transcripts, (7) the defendants were prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct in the Government’s rebuttal summation, (8) the District Court erred in (

a) declining to give a “theory of the defense” instruction, (

b) instructing the jury on a conscious avoidance theory, and (

c) instructing the jury that “economic substance” existed only if there was a “reasonable possibility” of profit, (9) spillover prejudice infected Coplan’s and Vaughn’s remaining convictions, and

(10) Bolton’s sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. I. Validity of the Government’s Klein Conspiracy Theory The first issue on appeal concerns the legal validity of the Government’s Klein conspiracy theory under the “defraud clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 371. As previously noted, Count One of the Redacted Indictment charged Coplan, Nissenbaum, Shapiro, and Vaughn in a § 371 conspiracy with three objectives: (1) to defraud the United States (the Klein conspiracy), (2) to evade taxes, and (3) to make false statements to the IRS.

The core objective argued by the Government at trial was the Klein conspiracy, and that conspiracy forms the primary focus of the defendants’ arguments on appeal. A. The Origins of the Klein Conspiracy Enacted in 1867, the original federal conspiracy statute was appended to “An Act to amend existing Laws relating to Internal Revenue and for other Purposes.” Abraham S. Goldstein, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, 68 Yale L.J. 405, 418 (1959) (quoting Act of March 2, 1867, ch. 169, § 30, 14 Stat. 484).

In the 1875 codification, the statute was moved from its place among the internal revenue measures and included among the general penal provisions. Id. at 418 n. 36. In United States v. Hirsch, 100 U.S. 33, 25 L.Ed. 539 (1879), the Supreme Court held that the conspiracy provision was generally applicable to the whole body of federal law. In so holding, the Court described the prohibited fraud as “any fraud against [the United States].

It may be against the coin, or consist in cheating the government of its land or other property.” Id. at 35. “It is a well-established rule of construction that where Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under ... the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms.” Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 21, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted) (omission in the original).

At common law, the words “to defraud” meant to deprive another of property rights by dishonest means. See Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188, 44 S.Ct. 511, 68 L.Ed. 968 (1924); Porcelli v. United States, 303 F.3d 452, 457 n. 1 (2d Cir.2002) (noting that the “familiar common law meaning” of the term ‘ “fraud” ’ involved “using falsity to do the victim out of money or property interests”). Other federal criminal statutes are generally in accord. See, e.g., United States v.

Pierce, 224 F.3d 158, 165 (2d Cir.2000) (“In the context of mail fraud and wire fraud, the words ‘to defraud’ commonly refer ‘to wronging one in his property rights by dishonest methods or schemes’.... ” (quotation marks omitted)). Nonetheless, the word “defraud” in § 371 has been interpreted much more broadly. The current understanding of “conspiracy to defraud” liability may be traced to two seminal Supreme Court cases. In the first case, Haas v.

Henkel, 216 U.S. 462, 30 S.Ct. 249, 54 L.Ed. 569 (1910), the defendants obtained advance information from a statistician employed by the Department of Agriculture in order to gain a speculating advantage in the grain futures market. The Court invoked an expansive reading of the word “defraud” to bring the defendants’ conduct within the conspiracy statute. Specifically, the Court held that “it is not essential that such a conspiracy shall contemplate a financial loss or that one shall result.

The statute is broad enough in its terms to include any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing, or defeating the lawful function of any department of government.” Id. at 479, 30 S.Ct. 249. Fourteen years later, in Hammer-schmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 44 S.Ct. 511, 68 L.Ed. 968 (1924), the Court attempted to retrench from the expansive reading of § 371 in Haas. In the words of Professor (later, Dean) Abraham S.

Gold-stein of the Yale Law School, “[t]he expansive reading of the statute in Haas ... finally led the Supreme Court to attempt a systematic examination of what the judiciary had wrought. Hammerschmidt v. United States furnished the occasion.” Goldstein, 68 Yale L.J. at 429 (footnote omitted). The Hammerschmidt defendants were convicted of a conspiracy to defraud the United States by interfering with the World War I military draft through the printing and circulation of handbills urging those subject to the draft not to obey it.

The Supreme Court reversed the convictions under § 371, holding that “[t]o conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the government out of property or money, but it also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” Hammer-schmidt, 265 U.S. at 188, 44 S.Ct. 511 (emphasis added). Because the defendants’ “open defiance” of the Selective Service Act was devoid of deceit or other trickery, the Supreme Court held that their conduct did not fall within the scope of § 371. Id. at 189, 44 S.Ct. 511.

The Klein conspiracy doctrine at issue here is the progeny of Haas and Hammerschmidt, In United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908, 916 (2d Cir.1957), the defendants were charged with tax evasion and a “defraud conspiracy” in connection with their whiskey selling business. Id. at 915-16. The district court entered judgments of acquittal on the substantive counts, and the jury convicted on the remaining § 371 conspiracy count.

On appeal, we found sufficient evidence to support the § 371 conspiracy conviction based on twenty “acts of concealment of income,” including false statements on tax returns and in interrogatory responses. Id. at 915. Relying on Hammerschmidt, we held that [mjere failure to disclose income would not be sufficient to show the crime charged of defrauding the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371.

The statute, however, not only includes the cheating of the government out of property or money, but “also means to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful governmental functions by deceit, craft or trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest.” Id. at 916 (quoting Hammerschmidt, 265 U.S. at 188, 44 S.Ct. 511). Thus, in order to prove a Klein conspiracy, the Government must show “(1) that [the] defendant entered into an agreement (2) to obstruct a lawful function of the Government (3) by deceitful or dishonest means and (4) at least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v.

Ballistrea, 101 F.3d 827, 832 (2d Cir.1996) (alteration omitted). B. The Challenge to Klein The defendants argue vigorously on appeal that the Klein conspiracy theory is textually unfounded. The Government’s stare decisis defense of the Klein doctrine lends support to this view, as it rests entirely on the construction of § 371 in Ham-merschmidt. There is nothing in the Government’s brief recognizable as statutory

interpretation — no discussion of plain meaning, legislative history, or interpretive canons. Indeed, in all 325 pages of its brief, the Government does not even quote the text of § 371. The Government thus appears implicitly to concede that the Klein conspiracy is a common law crime, created by the courts rather than by Congress. That fact alone warrants considerable judicial skepticism. See United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 267 n. 6, 117 S.Ct. 1219, 137 L.Ed.2d 432 (1997) (“Federal crimes are defined by Congress, not the court....”); see also Rogers v.

Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 476, 121 S.Ct. 1693, 149 L.Ed.2d 697 (2001) (Scalia, ./., dissenting) (“[T]he notion of a common-law crime is utterly anathema today....”). To justify an expansive reading of § 371, courts have occasionally implied that a conspiracy to defraud the Government is to be read more broadly than a conspiracy to defraud a private person. See Goldstein, 68 Yale L.J. at 424. Dicta in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987), for example, accepted such a distinction.

Quoting a decision of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, the Supreme Court stated that “ ‘[a] statute which ... has for its object the protection of the individual property rights of the members of the civic body, is one thing; a statute which has for its object the protection and welfare of the government alone, which exists for the purpose of administering itself in the interests of the public, [is] quite another.’ ” Id. at 359 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. 2875 (quoting Curley v. United States, 130 F. 1, 7 (1st Cir.1904) (alterations in original)).

But this conclusion appears to rest on a policy judgment — that, in the nature of things, government interests justify broader protection that the interests of private parties — rather than on any principle of statutory

interpretation. Notwithstanding these infirmities in the history and deployment of the statute, it is now well established that § 371 “is not confined to fraud as that term has been defined in the common law,” but reaches “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’ ” Dennis v. United States, 384 U.S. 855, 861, 86 S.Ct. 1840, 16 L.Ed.2d 973 (1966) (quoting Haas, 216 U.S. at 479, 30 S.Ct. 249).

Indeed, Coplan (whose counsel “takes the laboring oar” on the Klein conspiracy issue) “readily concedes that, were the weight of this Circuit’s case law outcome-determinative in this matter, his challenge to the government’s Klein theory would fail.” Coplan Reply 3. Although the defendants argue forcefully on appeal that we should follow the example of Skilling v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 2928, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010), and “pare” the body of § 371 precedent “down to its core,” id., such arguments are properly directed to a higher authority.

As an intermediate appellate court, we are bound to follow the dictates of Supreme Court precedents, no matter how persuasive we find the arguments for breaking loose from the moorings of established judicial norms by “paring” a statute. ' In sum, because the Klein doctrine derives from and falls within the scope of the law of the Circuit (itself grounded on long-lived Supreme Court decisions), we reject the defendants’ challenge to the validity of that theory of criminal liability. II.

The Sufficiency Challenges In addition to challenging the legal validity of the Klein conspiracy theory, defendants Shapiro and Nissenbaum mount a series of sufficiency challenges. As a general matter, a defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence that led to his conviction at trial “bears a heavy burden,” United States v. Heras, 609 F.3d 101, 105 (2d Cir.2010) (quotation marks omitted), as the standard of review is “exceedingly deferential,” United States v. Hassan, 578 F.3d 108, 126 (2d Cir.2008).

In evaluating a sufficiency challenge, we “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, crediting every inference that could have been drawn in the government’s favor, and deferring to the jury’s assessment of witness credibility and its assessment of the weight of the evidence.” United States v. Chavez, 549 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir.2008) (internal citations, alterations and quotation marks omitted). Although sufficiency review is de novo, United States v.

Yannotti, 541 F.3d 112, 120 (2d Cir.2008), we will uphold the judgments of conviction if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt,” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781. A. Sufficiency of the Evidence Supporting Count One Defendants Shapiro and Nissenbaum first challenge the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to each of the three alleged objectives of the § 371 conspiracy.

As previously noted, Count One of the Redacted Indictment charged the trial defendants in a § 371 conspiracy with three objectives: (1) to defraud the United States (the Klein conspiracy), (2) to evade taxes, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and (3) to make false statements to the IRS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. “To sustain a conspiracy conviction, the Government must present some evidence from which it can reasonably be inferred that the person charged with conspiracy knew of the existence of the scheme alleged in the indictment and knowingly joined and participated in it.” United States v.

Rodriguez, 392 F.3d 539, 545 (2d Cir.2004) (quotation marks omitted). In the context of a conspiracy conviction, “deference to the jury’s findings is especially important ... because a conspiracy by its very nature is a secretive operation, and it is a rare case where all aspects of a conspiracy can be laid bare in court.” United States v. Rojas, 617 F.3d 669, 674 (2d Cir.2010) (quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original).

Where, as here, “a jury returns a guilty verdict on an indictment charging several acts in the conjunctive, ... the verdict stands if the evidence is sufficient with respect to any one of the acts charged.” Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 56-57, 112 S.Ct. 466, 116 L.Ed.2d 371 (1991) (quotation marks omitted). For that reason, “the lack of sufficient evidence to support one of the objects of a multi-object conspiracy [will] not vitiate the conspiracy conviction, where there [i]s sufficient evidence to support [another] object.” United States v. Pascarella, 84 F.3d 61, 71 (2d Cir.1996).

In what follows, we consider the conspiracy evidence against defendants Shapiro and Nissenbaum, mindful that “[t]he character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be judged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts, but only by looking at it as a whole,” Cont’l Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 699, 82 S.Ct. 1404, 8 L.Ed.2d 777 (1962) (quotation marks omitted).

Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity and ease of analysis, we examine the evidence with respect to each alleged objective of the conspiracy in some detail before considering the conspiracy “as a whole.” For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the evidence with respect to the intent of Shapiro and Nissenbaum is insufficient to support their convictions on Count One. 1. Conspiracy Evidence Against Shapiro a.

Klein Conspiracy Objective The centerpiece of the conspiracy case against Shapiro, an E & Y partner and tax lawyer with nearly four decades’ experience, is the Government’s claim that he “coached” E & Y partner Thomas Dougherty to lie to the IRS by helping him come up with non-tax explanations for the COBRA transaction that Shapiro knew were not true. In rebuttal summation, the Government argued that “[i]f you credit Mr. Dougherty’s testimony, ... that alone is proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the conspiracy count at least as to ... Mr.

Shapiro.” On appeal, the Government similarly argues that Dougherty’s testimony “standing alone ... would be sufficient to support his conviction on the false statements object of the conspiracy.” Indeed, variations on the assertion that Shapiro “coached” Dougherty to lie appear no fewer than four times in the Government’s brief. See Gov’t’s Br. 67, 112, 117, 134. But the record with respect to Dougherty’s testimony is considerably more equivocal than in the Government’s account. April 2, 2001 Conference Call.

Dough-erty testified that in March 2001, he advised Coplan that the IRS was auditing the WRB Lake transaction — the first such audit of a COBRA transaction. In response, Coplan informed Dougherty that Dennis Conlon, an attorney in E & Y’s national tax practice, would coordinate the audit response. On April 2, 2001, Dough-erty participated in a conference call with Coplan and Conlon that involved a discussion of “ideas that may be presented to the agent for why [the clients] did the steps that they did” in executing the COBRA transaction.

Following the initial conference call, Conlon sent an e-mail indicating that, “I think we need Richard [Shapiro] at the first meeting,” because “I want to state our case clearly and correctly from the beginning.” April 21p, 2001 Conference Call. On April 24, 2001, Dougherty participated in a conference call with Conlon, Coplan, and Shapiro. According to Dougherty’s contemporaneous notes, Shapiro raised the topic of the business purpose of the COBRA transaction during the call. May 16, 2001 Preparation Meeting.

Dougherty testified that on May 16, 2001, “Conlon led [a] meeting to prepare Richard Shapiro and myself for our meeting the next day with the IRS.” At that meeting, Conlon coordinated the assignment of discussion topics for the IRS meeting, reviewed the relevant points of the IRS Information Document Request (“IDR”), and “anticipated ... questions that would come up during the IRS meeting.” May 17, 2001 IRS Meeting. The following day, Conlon, Dougherty, and Shapiro met with the IRS to discuss the WRB Lake COBRA transaction.

During that meeting, Dougherty falsely represented that E & Y “mentioned the tax and financial implications of foreign currency investments” to the clients involved in the WRB Lake transaction, and that the clients “became interested” in the COBRA transaction as a result.

Dougherty testified at trial that in fact his discussion of foreign currency investment with the clients was “strictly limited to discussions we had in the presentation of the COBRA transaction,” and that he had “lied [to the IRS agents] about the reasons for [the clients] entering into the COBRA transaction.” Although Dougherty testified that he had told Shapiro “the real facts” about how the WRB clients “had come to Ernst & Young for the COBRA transaction,” he did not elaborate on the substance of that conversation.

On these facts, the Government repeatedly asserts that “Dougherty testified specifically that in consultation with Co-plan and Shapiro, he lied to the IRS,” and that “Coplan and Shapiro coached Dough-erty to provide false information to the IRS.” But the record support for these assertions is slim at best.

With respect to the April 24, 2001 conference call, Dough-erty’s notes indicate that Shapiro asked a single question: “What is the business purpose?” During the May 16, 2001 preparation meeting, Conlon — not Shapiro— led the meeting, reviewed the IDR, anticipated potential IRS questions, and coordinated “who [would] ... talk about what topics” at the meeting. Contrary to the Government’s assertion, Dougherty testified on cross-examination that Shapiro “never told [him] to lie” and did not suggest lying to the IRS in order to conceal “problems” with the COBRA transaction.

Crucially, Dougherty further testified that Shapiro himself “believed [COBRA] worked under the law.” Beyond the Dougherty testimony, the Government also claims that Shapiro engaged in various acts that, while not “inherently deceptive,” were deceptive “in the context of this case,” as follows. Promotional Materials. The Government faults Shapiro for his participation in E & Y’s policy of discouraging personnel from leaving PowerPoint slides and other marketing materials with clients, in case the IRS should demand copies of those materials from the client during an audit.

See, e.g., A V: 42 (Shapiro e-mail stating that presentation materials should not be left with the client). The Government claims that Shapiro and others enforced this policy to prevent the marketing materials, which laid out each step of the underlying transactions, from falling into the hands of the IRS. The Government does not argue, however, that the IRS ever requested copies of the promotional materials held in E & Y’s own files, or that governing ethical standards required E & Y to disclose those materials in the absence of such a request. Early Termination.

Similarly, the Government highlights Shapiro’s editorial comments on an internal “Action Plan” that summarized the steps involved in the CDS tax shelter. Shapiro advised his E & Y colleagues to avoid references to the “early” termination of the CDS swap contracts. The Government characterizes Shapiro’s advice as an “underhanded effort[ ] to protect the descriptions of CDS that were designed to convince the agents of something the defendants knew to be false.” Gov’t’s Br. 122 (internal quotation marks omitted).

As the Government reluctantly concedes, however, the CDS swap contracts provided that either party could elect to terminate the swap before the maturity date — but imposed no obligation to do so. Indeed, several clients inquired about continuing the swaps to the maturity date because they were “interested in the swap profits,” and were told that doing so would lead to deferral of income, but not conversion from ordinary to capital gain. In the end, no CDS swap extended past the early termination date.

Although Shapiro’s edits to the CDS “Action Plan” clearly deemphasized the prevailing expectation of early termination, it appears that the revised version was in fact more accurate in its

summary of the swap contract terms. Advice to Keep CDS Trading Account Open. As an additional example of deception “in context,” the Government points to a suggestion by Coplan, Shapiro, and Nis-senbaum that CDS clients continue trading past the early termination date in order to “mak[e] their tax argument as strong as possible.” A IV: 214; see id. at 212 (Shapiro e-mail advocating “keeping the trading account active” in light of the “upside and no down side”); id. at 219. The Government argues that this advice “was designed to protect the bogus descriptions of CDS.” Gov’t’s Br. 122.

There is no dispute, however, that the substance of the advice advocated lawful trading activity. Review of PICO Documents. Finally, the Government points to Shapiro’s development and review of various documents related to the PICO tax shelter as evidence of his “involvement in providing false information directly to the IRS.” Gov’t’s Br. 135. For example, the Government highlights Shapiro’s involvement in drafting the PICO opinion letter with outside counsel, Peter Cinquegrani, who was then special counsel at Arnold & Porter.

The Government argues, inter alia, that the opinion letter contained misleading statements because it described PICO as an “opportunity to create personal investment companies,” A V: 504, when the “real reason” for the transaction “was to provide tax losses for investors,” A III: 114/3756.

Cinquegrani, the self-described “principal wordsmith” of the opinion letter, testified at trial that he intended the opinion letter to be misleading because his “intention was to describe the transaction as much as possible as an ordinary business deal and to downplay all the tax aspects.” There is little such evidence with respect to Shapiro’s intent. The record of communication between Cinquegra-ni and Shapiro reflects a sometimes tense working relationship, in which Shapiro repeatedly raised questions and concerns about the language of the draft opinion.

See A III: 144/3873-145/3876 (Cinquegra-ni testimony describing Shapiro as “a pain” and “high maintenance” because he “would frequently ask the same questions multiple times” and “would revisit the same issues that had previously been addressed”). For example, Shapiro expressed “concern” that “the nature of the rep[resentation]s investors are making ... may be too strong.” A IV: 455. On several occasions, Shapiro proposed revisions that Cinquegrani incorporated into PICO documents.

As a result, an early representation that PICO clients had a “principal” investment purpose was replaced by a representation that PICO clients had a “substantial nontax business purpose.” A III: 165/3955-56. Shapiro also questioned a draft version of the opinion letter that inaccurately suggested that the tax consequences of the PICO transaction were not discussed with clients. A IV: 457. As a result, the final opinion letter disclosed that potential PICO investors were “provided an overview of the economics of the trading strategy, including potential tax consequences.” A V: 575.

The Government argues strenuously on appeal that the final opinion letter still contained lies and misleading statements about the “real reason” for the PICO transaction. But we note that, as Cin-quegrani himself testified, the very fact that an opinion letter was prepared indicates that the client anticipated substantial tax benefits from the transaction. A III: 146/3880-81. Thus, to fault Shapiro because the opinion letter failed affirmatively to state that the “real reason” for the PICO transaction was “to provide tax losses” borders on the spurious.

At a minimum, Shapiro’s conduct with respect to the crafting of the PICO opinion letter appears equally consistent with good faith in his role as a “technician” tasked with making sure the transactions were structured in compliance with tax law. Id. at 140/3857-58 (Cinquegrani testimony); see also A II: 544-45/2865-67 (Six testimony); A III: 398/4882 (Rydberg testimony). b.

Tax Evasion Objective Shapiro also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the tax evasion objective of the § 371 conspiracy charged in Count One. “It is elementary that conspiracy is a crime, separate and distinct from the substantive offense.” United States v.

Pinckney, 85 F.3d 4, 8 (2d Cir.1996). “Although the government need not prove commission of the substantive offense” to secure a conspiracy conviction, “it must prove that the intended future conduct [the conspirators] agreed upon includes all the elements of the substantive crime.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

In this case, the substantive crime of tax evasion requires proof of “(1) the existence of a substantial tax debt, (2) willfulness of the nonpayment, and (3) an affirmative act by the defendant, performed with intent to evade or defeat the calculation or payment of the tax.” United States v. Litwok, 678 F.3d 208, 215 (2d Cir.2012) (quotation marks omitted); see 26 U.S.C. § 7201.

The Government’s sole tax deficiency theory at trial was that the Add-On tax shelter offered investors no reasonable possibility of profit, and that the tax losses resulting from Add-On therefore could not properly be deducted from the investors’ tax returns. The Government argued that, in order to create a non-tax explanation for the mechanics of the Add-On transaction, the trial defendants adopted a false “cover story” proposed by Bolton.

That cover story attributed a key step in the Add-On transaction — the transfer of digital options from the individual partnership to a newly formed LLC — to a request from trader Andrew Krieger to consolidate accounts for administrative convenience. There was no meaningful dispute at trial that the “consolidation cover story” was false.

The Government argues that sufficient evidence supported the tax evasion objective because Shapiro “w[as] involved at critical junctures of Add-On’s development, marketing, and defense.” In what follows, we consider the evidence with respect to Shapiro’s involvement at each of these “critical junctures.” Add-On Development. The parties do not dispute that the strategy for the Add-On tax shelter was initially proposed by Vaughn and thereafter developed by Vaughn, Coplan, and members of the investment firm operated by Bolton.

Although Shapiro received copies of early emails describing a “precursor concept” to the Add-On shelter, and participated in telephone conferences about that preliminary idea, the “specifics” of the transaction were only developed subsequently. A III: 237/4241; see AII: 496/2674 (this was “not the way the Add-On transaction ultimately came to be”). Moreover, Shapiro did not attend an early meeting at which the alleged “cover story” was discussed, was not involved in drafting the factual

section of the Add-On legal opinion letter, and was excluded from e-mails in which others discussed the economics of the transaction. Add-On Marketing. The Government’s claim that Shapiro was involved in marketing the Add-On shelter rests primarily on his receipt of various e-mails. In June 2000, Coplan sent Vaughn, Shapiro, and Nissenbaum a proposed e-mail to other E & Y professionals announcing the new Add-On shelter, and asked them to review for “accuracy and tone.” AIV: 127. That e-mail repeated the consolidation cover story.

Similarly, in July 2000, Coplan sent an e-mail asking Vaughn, Shapiro, Nis-senbaum, and others to “make any final changes” to a draft client solicitation letter. But contrary to the Government’s assertions, there is no evidence that Shapiro actually or habitually “reviewed” the Add-On solicitation letters before they were sent to clients. Indeed, according to the trial testimony of cooperator Belle Six, Shapiro was not among the people who were “part of th[e] process” of “sending out letters to clients.” A II: 424-25/2391-93.

Shapiro maintains that he had no reason to understand or suspect the economics of the Add-On shelter until February 12, 2003 — years after the Add-On marketing campaign — when he received draft “Talking Points” that contained the details necessary to assess the profit potential of the transaction.

After reviewing the draft, Shapiro asked whether “the 2:1 ratio” describing potential payoff was “correct” and what “the impact of fees” was on the profitability of the transaction. .He then learned from Coplan that “[apparently, in the [A]dd-[0]n the 2:1 payoff would not exceed the transaction fees paid to E & Y and Bolton totaling 1.5% of the loss amount since the net premium was under 1%.” A V: 20 (emphasis added). The Government offers no explanation for why Shapiro would ask about the payoff ratio and impact of fees if he already knew that the Add-On shelter lacked profit potential. Add-On Defense.

The Government further argues that, by “reviewing and approving” a chart for use in an IRS deposition, Shapiro himself committed an affirmative act of tax evasion. The chart at issue depicted the “home run” or “sweet spot” scenario in which the Add-On shelter would produce a huge windfall to the client. Although the Government conceded at trial that “the numbers on the chart are true,” it argues that the chart was used to mislead the IRS by attempting to establish a false non-tax motivation for a transaction.

In response, Shapiro argues that there is no evidence that he did anything affirmative with the chart, which correctly sets forth a variety of outcomes for the transaction, including the extraordinarily unlikely “home run.” At most, Shapiro’s time records reflect that “he reviewed it” for an hour and a half. Finally, the Government points to correspondence regarding the Add-On “amnesty template” as evidence of Shapiro’s participation in a tax evasion conspiracy.

It appears that Shapiro did provide comments on the Add-On amnesty template, although the record does not reflect the scope or content of his suggestions. The Government faults Shapiro for leaving the cover story undisturbed in the amnesty template, but it is not at all apparent that Shapiro in fact knew that the cover story was “bogus.” The Government argues that because Shapiro had seen an “instant message” from Vaughn proposing the Add-On concept, he knew that the “consolidation” business purpose was false.

But nothing in the instant message exchange suggested that the Add-On business purpose was false; instead, the cover story was developed during conference calls and e-mail correspondence in which Shapiro did not participate. c. False Statement Objective The third and final objective of the § 371 conspiracy imputed to Shapiro and charged in Count One, the false statements objective, was clearly directed to the conduct charged in Counts Six and Seven.

See A VI: 420/6161 (“Section 1001 is not only charged as an object of the conspiracy, but is also charged in Counts Six and Seven as separate substantive offenses against defendants Coplan and Vaughn.... ”). As previously noted, Counts Six and Seven charged defendants Coplan and Vaughn with making false statements to the IRS. The Government does not contend that Shapiro even knew about the Coplan and Vaughn depositions before they occurred, much less discussed their testimony with them. There was no separate substantive false statements charge against Shapiro in connection with his own IRS deposition. d.

The Conspiracy “As a Whole” Having reviewed the record and the arguments of counsel, we conclude that the evidence against Shapiro is insufficient to support his conviction on Count One. In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful that the absence of direct evidence is not dispositive, since “the government is entitled to prove its case solely through circumstantial evidence.” United States v. Rodriguez, 392 F.3d 539, 544 (2d Cir.2004).

Nevertheless, “[i]f the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution gives equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence, then a reasonable jury must-necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Huezo, 546 F.3d 174, 193 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, an essential element of the conspiracy charged in Count One required proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Shapiro joined the alleged conspiracy with the “specific intent” to violate the law. United States v.

Ogando, 547 F.3d 102, 107-08 (2d Cir.2008); Rodriguez, 392 F.3d at 545 (“To sustain a conspiracy conviction, the government must present some evidence from which it can reasonably be inferred that the person charged with conspiracy knew of the existence of the scheme alleged in the indictment and knowingly joined and participated in it”) (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted). The evidence with respect to Shapiro’s intent, viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, remains, at best, in equipoise.

Because “[i]t would not satisfy the [Constitution] to have a jury determine that the defendant is probably guilty,” Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 278, 113 S.Ct. 2078, 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993), we conclude that Shapiro’s conviction on Count One must be reversed. 2. Conspiracy Evidence Against Nissenbaum a. Klein Conspiracy Objective PICO Amnesty Template. The principal conspiracy evidence against Nissenb-aum relates to his participation in the development of the PICO amnesty template. See note 26, ante.

The Government asserts that Nissenbaum “drafted, and then circulated to Shapiro and Coplan for their review, a template for the PICO amnesty submission.” The strongest evidence to support the Government’s assertion is a February 28, 2002 e-mail Nissenbaum sent to Shapiro and Coplan with the draft PICO template attached. The text of the e-mail reads as follows: “Gentlemen, your comments.

Bob, did you also want me to do an SDI template [referring to a different tax shelter]?” Because the PICO template contained false and misleading descriptions of the transaction, the Government claims that Nissenbaum knowingly participated in providing false information directly to the IRS. But once again, the record belies the Government’s gloss. Dougherty testified that he “drafted the [PICO] amnesty letters based on a template from the SISG tool kit,” and that the template “generally tracked the opinion letter” for the transaction.

With respect to Nissenbaum’s role in developing the template, Dougherty testified as follows: My recollection was that Martin Nis-senbaum was the reviewer of the template letters that I prepared and he provided some non-substantive comments on the final version of the letters to go out to the clients. A II: 235/1641. Dougherty further testified that the “non-substantive comments” Nissenbaum provided were to “take out the bold” and “correct[ ] a typo.” Advice to Keep CDS Trading Account Open. The e-mail chain regarding the extension of the CDS trading account, raised with respect to Shapiro above, see

Part II.A.l.a, ante, also features in the conspiracy case against Nissenbaum. In a November 12, 2001 e-mail, Coplan asked Shapiro and Nissenbaum about a CDS shelter in which “[t]heir swaps have terminated, but Bolton is suggesting that the partnership be shut down after essentially 13.5 months.” A IV: 219. Coplan’s question was whether E & Y should “intercede and suggest running another year out with the trading account?” Nissenbaum responded: ‘Yes.

They sound way too anxious to get out.” From this exchange, the Government argues that “[t]he defendants were understandably concerned about the taxpayers appearing ‘too anxious to get out’ of the trading account because that hasty exit would undermine the false description of the trading account as an investment vehicle.” But it appears that, in the context of the e-mail exchange, the pronoun “they” in Nissenbaum’s two-sentence e-mail is not a reference to anxious “taxpayers.” The e-mail appended to Coplan’s initial inquiry was a note from Cam Hasseltine, an employee of the Bolton firm, which was managing the CDS trading accounts.

Hasseltine’s e-mail, which suggested the termination of the CDS account, was addressed to Robert Coplan, Belle Six, and two other E & Y employees — not to the taxpayer clients at issue. If anyone was “too anxious to get out” of the CDS shelter, it was the Bolton employees managing the trading accounts, not the taxpayers who entered the transaction. Review of Add-On Documents. Finally, the Government points to Nissenbaum’s review of various Add-On documents as evidence of his participation in the Klein conspiracy.

In March 2000, Coplan sent a draft Add-On amnesty template to Nis-senbaum, Shapiro, and another E & Y employee with a request to look it over “to avoid unnecessary facts or to make it easier to complete accurately.” Twenty minutes later, Nissenbaum replied with a three-line e-mail: The disclosure looks fine to me except that I don’t believe that it’s necessary to put the specifics of each option trade in the letter. If we do it here, presumably we’d have to include the hundreds of trades that are done in PICO. Id. at 400.

Nothing in Nissenbaum’s re- . sponse evinced a knowing “stamp of approval” for the consolidation cover story in the Add-On amnesty template. Similarly, Nissenbaum also received a July 2000 email from Coplan suggesting that Nissenb-aum and others should make “any final changes” to a draft Add-On client solicitation letter. But, as with Shapiro, there is no evidence that Nissenbaum actually “reviewed” the Add-On solicitation letters; nor was he “part of th[e] process” of “sending out letters to clients.” b.

Tax Evasion Objective With respect to the alleged tax evasion objective of the § 371 conspiracy, Nissenb-aum contends that the evidence is similarly insufficient. Nissenbaum did not participate in telephone conferences or meetings related to the development of the Add-On shelter. Although Nissenbaum occasionally received copies of e-mail correspondence related to Add-On, it appears that he responded only once — in the three-line email quoted above.

Indeed, the Government appeared to acknowledge the dearth of direct evidence as to Nissenbaum in response to his motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. See A III: 516 (Nissenbaum “[a]dmittedly ... doesn’t have the same involvement that Mr. Co-plan and Mr. Vaughn and Mr. Shapiro do”). Instead, the Government’s principal theory of tax evasion liability for Nissenbaum was based on Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946).

Under Pinkerton, “[o]nce a conspiracy has been established, the criminal liability of its members extends to all acts of wrongdoing occurring during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” United States v. Gallerani, 68 F.3d 611, 620 (2d Cir.1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Pinkerton is not “a broad principle of vicarious liability that imposes criminal responsibility upon every co-conspirator for whatever substantive offenses any of their confederates commit.” United States v. Bruno, 383 F.3d 65, 90 (2d Cir.2004) (quotation marks omitted).

Instead, Pinkerton provides that “a defendant who does not directly commit a substantive offense may nevertheless be liable if the commission of the offense by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant as a consequence of their criminal agreement.” United States v. Parkes, 497 F.3d 220, 232 (2d Cir.2007) (quotation marks omitted). The Government argues that Nissenb-aum was guilty under a Pinkerton liability theory because it was reasonably foreseeable that a coconspirator would commit tax evasion.

As previously noted, the trial defendants (including Nissenbaum) concede that they were aware of Add-On’s lack of profit potential as of February 2003, when an e-mail exchange revealed the impact of fees on the profitability of the transaction. See

Part ILAl.b, ante. The Government argues that, because Nis-senbaum was also aware that the IRS was conducting depositions related to the ongoing audit of the Add-On shelter, it was reasonably foreseeable to him that a co-conspirator would commit tax evasion. The Government does not, of course, assert the proposition that the mere fact of an ongoing IRS inquiry suggests, much less shows, criminal intent or knowledge that the subject of the inquiry is unlawful. The trouble with the Government’s argument is that “even Pinkerton liability ... is premised on a mental state.” United States v.

Ferguson, 676 F.3d 260, 279 n. 18 (2d Cir.2011) (citing Pinkerton, 328 U.S. at 647, 66 S.Ct. 1180 (“The criminal intent to do the act is established by the formation of the conspiracy.”)). In other words, although Pinkerton may permit a broader scope of liability for established coconspir-ators, the doctrine does not dilute or erode the basic requirement that “the person charged with conspiracy knew of the existence of the scheme alleged in the indictment and knowingly joined and participated in it.” Rodriguez, 392 F.3d at 545 (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted).

The Government’s only attempt to identify an affirmative act by Nissenbaum that would demonstrate the requisite criminal intent is the three-line March 2000 email. That is simply not enough. c. False Statements Objective As previously noted, see

Part II.A.1.C, ante, the false statements objective of the § 371 conspiracy was clearly directed to the conduct charged in Counts Six and Seven. The Government does not contend that Nissenbaum was aware of or involved in the false statements to the IRS during the Coplan and Vaughn depositions. There was no separate substantive false statements charge against Nissenbaum in connection with his own deposition. d.

The Conspiracy “As a Whole” Having examined the evidence against Nissenbaum with respect to each of the three objectives of the § 371 conspiracy charged in Count One, we turn again to the task of “looking at [the conspiracy] as a whole.” Cont’l Ore Co., 370 U.S. at 699, 82 S.Ct. 1404. Once again, our review of the record and the arguments of counsel compels the conclusion that the evidence against Nissenbaum is insufficient to support his conviction on Count One.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence with respect to Nissenbaum’s intent “gives equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence.” United States v. Glenn, 312 F.3d 58, 70 (2d Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under these circumstances, “a reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we conclude that Nissenbaum’s conviction on Count One must be reversed. B.

Sufficiency of the Evidence Supporting Counts Two and Three Defendants Shapiro and Nissenbaum also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support their convictions on Counts Two and Three, which charged all the trial defendants with tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. To prove a violation of § 7201, the Government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt (1) a substantial tax deficiency; (2) willfulness, meaning the intentional violation of a known legal duty; and (3) an affirmative act “with the intent to evade or defeat a tax or payment of it.” United States v.

Romano, 938 F.2d 1569, 1571 (2d Cir.1991). We have already reviewed the evidence supporting the tax evasion liability of both Shapiro and Nissenbaum in connection with the foregoing discussion of the tax evasion conspiracy objective. See

Part ILAl.b, II.A.2.b, ante. For substantially the reasons that compel reversal as to Count One, we conclude that the convictions of Shapiro and Nissenbaum on Counts Two and Three must be reversed. C. Sufficiency of the Evidence Supporting Count Four Finally, Nissenbaum challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on Count Four, which charged him with obstruction of the IRS in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). As previously noted, § . 7212(

a) prohibits conduct by which a defendant “corruptly or by force or threats of force ... obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of [the internal revenue code].” 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). “The key words in [§] 7212(

a) are ‘corruptly’ and ‘endeavors.’ ” United States v. Kelly, 147 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998). The District Court instructed the jury as follows: To act corruptly means to act with the intent to secure an unlawful advantage or benefit either for oneself or for another. Acting corruptly requires consciousness of wrongdoing. A VI: 428/6193-94. Although we have previously declined to read a willfulness requirement into § 7212(a), we have held that a substantially similar jury instruction was “as comprehensive and accurate as if the word ‘willfully’ was incorporated in the statute.” Kelly, 147 F.3d at 177. Here, the Government argues that Nis-senbaum violated § 7212(

a) by causing false and misleading statements to be submitted to the IRS in response to an IRS Information Document Request (“IDR”) regarding the Tradehill tax shelter. The evidence with respect to Count Four principally turns on the implications of the testimony of two E & Y partners who participated in the Tradehill transaction, Jacob Blank and Martin Flashner, and who testified at trial pursuant to immunity orders. Count Four originally alleged that the IDR contained four false statements:

(1) Profit motivation. The first allegedly false statement in the IDR response was that the E & Y partners had entered into the Tradehill transaction in order to generate profits. After Nissenbaum’s counsel made a Rule 29 motion on Count Four, the Government agreed to withdraw the allegation that this statement was “false and misleading” and to redact the Indictment accordingly.

(2) Euro exposure. The second allegedly false statement in the IDR response, as summarized in the Redacted Indictment, was that “the Tradehill transaction was intended fully to hedge the partners’ exposure to fluctuation in the euro.” The Redacted Indictment alleged that this statement was false because “in reality, the transaction had no capacity to do so.” AI: 106. The statement at issue appeared in response to the first question in the IDR questionnaire: “Describe all of your reasons and/or objectives for entering into the Transaction.

For each reason and/or objective, were these reasons and/or objectives achieved?” The IDR response letter, which was submitted and signed by Pros-kauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”) attorney Abraham Gutwein (“Gutwein”), included a ten-paragraph answer to question one. Among those ten paragraphs, the Government primarily quarrels with the following passage: Partly in order to hedge his exposure to the euro and to offset the losses sustained to date with respect to his Cap Gemini holdings, the taxpayer entered into the option transactions on November 1, 2000.

Under the currency option positions purchased and sold, the taxpayer would stand the potential of a substantial profit if the euro continued to decline in value relative to the dollar (as had been the prevailing trend) at the option exercise dates.... In that manner the taxpayer intended to fully hedge his exposure to fluctuation in the value of the euro. SA 812. The Government argues that the direct examination of Blank and Flashner, the principal witnesses with respect to Count Four, conclusively established that they did not enter the Tradehill transaction in order to hedge against exposure to the euro.

We disagree. Blank’s testimony, for example both on cross-examination and redirect examination showed that his tax-minimization purpose was not the only objective of the Tradehill transaction. On direct examination, Blank testified as follows: Q: Did you enter into the transaction in order to hedge your exposure to the euro? A: No, I did not. Q: Why then was it not your purpose to hedge the euro? A: The purpose of entering into the transaction was really to generate the loss. That was the real reason ... I made my investment.

The fact that foreign currency options were used, there was an exposure, ... it certainly was a factor or a competing factor that we were able to focus on, but ... foreign currency exposure was not the reason we entered into the deal. The reason was to get the tax loss. Q: What, if any, understanding did you have at the time of the transaction about how much of a hedge this transaction could provide? A: I had none. Q: What, if any, discussions did you have with other members of the transaction about how much of a hedge this transaction could provide? A: None.

Q: This [IDR response] says: In that manner the taxpayer intended to fully hedge his exposure to fluctuation in the value of the euro, is that statement true? A: It’s not correct. A II: 588/3037-38. But on cross examination, Blank equivocated by acknowledging that hedging against fluctuations in the euro was “an objective,” as follows: Q. I’m not asking you your primary objective, sir. I’m asking you [whether] an objective of entering into th[e] [Tradehill] transaction was to hedge the currency? An objective. THE COURT. Yes or no. Can you answer it? Q. At that time. A. At that time, yes. Q.

The [IDR] question did not ask you what your primary objective was, did it? A. That is correct. Q. So the three objectives that the participants had were to hedge against the currency, were to make money, and the obvious, tax motive. That’s why everybody is doing this, is that correct, sir? A. Yes. Id. at 609/3121-23.

And on redirect examination, the Government harked back to Blank’s testimony that because the Cap Gemini stock he had received “was not denominated in dollars” but rather “was denominated in a foreign currency, ... the justification for entering into the transaction from a business perspective was to be able to, in effect, hedge and try to reduce the risk associated with owning non-U.S. dollar denominated investments.” Id. at 570/2966-67. It sought clarification: Q. On direct examination you said that hedging the euro was a justification for the transaction. Do you remember using that word? A. Yes, sir, I do. Q.

What did you mean by that? A.

At the time we entered into the transaction, I was desirous of assuring that there was a business purpose for the transaction, and at that time I did have the foreign currency exposure, because, again, the stock that we were awarded in the sale was not denominated in dollars, it was in foreign currency, and to the extent that the transaction we entered offered, to the best of my knowledge at the time, the possibility of trying to mitigate or hedge some of the risk associated with the dollar going up or the dollar going down, that to me at that time, based on what I understood then, represented a business purpose for entering into this transaction.

Q. Was it the reason you entered into the transaction? A. It was not the primary reason. Id. at 618/3156. The record reflects a similar tension with respect to Flashner, who testified on direct examination that he did not enter the Tradehill transaction in order to hedge his exposure to the euro, A III: 24/3395, but admitted on cross examination that the E & Y partners discussed the “exchange rate risk” presented by their receipt of stock denominated in euros, id. at 32/3424.

Flashner further testified that “it would make sense” to protect his investment “by trying to make some money from this downward movement of the euro against the dollar.” Id. at 33/3430-31. Finally, Flashner admitted that his goals in investing in Tradehill were “two-fold”: to obtain tax losses and “to earn a profit from the transaction.” Id. at 24/3394. Faced with obvious internal tension within the testimony of its two principal witnesses on Count Four, the Government avers that “the jury was entitled to rely on the direct examination.” Gov’t’s Br. 185-86.

But even if the jury fully credited the direct examination, as we must assume here, that testimony lends implicit support to Nissenbaum’s defense as well. As noted above, Blank’s direct testimony was that “[t]he purpose of entering into the transaction was really to generate the loss. That was the real reason ... I made my investment. The fact that foreign currency options were used, there was exposure ... it certainly was a factor or a competing factor that we were able to focus on, but ... foreign currency exposure was not the reason we entered into the deal.” A II: 588/3037.

The straightforward implication of Blank’s testimony is that hedging against fluctuations in the euro was not the primary reason for entering the Tradehill transaction. But that was not the question posed by the IDR. Question number one prompted the taxpayer to “[djescribe all of your reasons and/or objectives for entering the Transaction.” Blank’s statement — in the same sentence excerpted by the Government — that foreign currency exposure “certainly was a factor” appears consistent with the statement in the IDR response that the transaction was entered “[pjartly in order to hedge.” SA 812 (emphasis added). (

S) Non-written understandings. The third allegedly false statement in the IDR response was that “[tjhere were ho non-written understandings” among the participants in the Tradehill transaction. The Redacted Indictment alleged that this statement was false because “in reality, there was an understanding among all the parties to the transaction that the E & Y partners would exit their option positions before the end of 2000, in order to claim tax losses they could use to offset their ... income.” AI: 106.

There was no affirmative testimony about the existence of “non-written understandings” among the Tradehill participants. In fact, both Blank and Flashner denied engaging in discussions with any other E & Y partner about exiting their option positions. A II: 578/2997, 579/3000, 580/3005 (Blank); A III: 23/3389 (Flash-ner). Nevertheless, the Government insists that the “entire thrust” of their testimony was that the partners were entering the Tradehill transaction to generate a tax loss for the same tax year, and would take the steps necessary to that end.

Even assuming arguendo that the Government is correct about the “thrust” of the testimony, a more fundamental defect in this allegation remains: the Tradehill participants retained Gutwein — not Nis-senbaum — to represent them with regard to the IRS audit. Gutwein, who had powers of attorney from the Tradehill participants, substantially revised a response that Nissenbaum proposed about “understandings” among the E & Y partners.

In a draft IDR response, Nissenbaum noted that “[a]ny ‘understandings’ involved the purchase and contribution of the options, the creation of the various entities and the sale of the assets that generated the losses.” A V: 130. Gutwein then revised the response to state that “[t]here were no non-written understandings between the [Tradehill participants].” Thus, it appears that the language suggested by Nissenb-aum was more accurate than the language of the final IDR response. (Jf) Future referral of business.

The final allegedly false statement in the IDR response was that there was no expectation or referral of any future business to Proskauer, “when in reality, in 2001, the defendants referred PICO clients to [Pros-kauer] for opinion letters.” The Government relies on the fact that about the time Proskauer was completing the legal opinions for the Tradehill shelter, it was given the paid work of writing PICO opinions, which had to that point been prepared by Arnold & Porter.

Based on the timing, the Government argues that the jury was free to conclude that there was indeed an “expectation or referral” of future business, rendering the IDR statement to the contrary false and misleading. But Blank and Flashner did not testify to any expectation or referral of future business to Proskauer. In the absence of any affirmative proof, we are left only with the “speculation and surmise” that such an expectation existed. Langston v. Smith, 630 F.3d 310, 314 (2d Cir.2011) (“[A] conviction based on speculation and surmise alone cannot stand.... ” (quotation marks omitted)).

Having reviewed the record and the arguments of counsel, we conclude that the record compels reversal of Nissenb-aum’s conviction on Count Four. Given the equivocal testimony by Blank and Flashner and the role of Gutwein in drafting the IDR response, “a reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt” as to whether Nissenbaum corruptly obstructed or impeded the IRS. Glenn, 312 F.3d at 70 (quotation marks omitted). III.

Propriety of Venue for Count Six, Charging Vaughn with False Statements to the IRS Defendant Vaughn challenges the propriety of venue for Count Six, charging him with making false statements to the IRS during a June 12, 2002 deposition in Nashville, Tennessee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. A. Legal Standard Because “[p]roper venue in criminal proceedings was a matter of concern to the Nation’s founders,” the United States Constitution “twice safeguards the defendant’s venue right.” United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1, 6, 118 S.Ct. 1772, 141 L.Ed.2d 1 (1998).

Article III requires that “the Trial of all Crimes ... shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed.” U.S. Const, art. Ill, § 2, cl. 3. The Sixth Amendment further provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” Id. amend VI; see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 18 (requiring that “the government must prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed”).

When the relevant federal statute does not specify how to determine the location where the crime was “committed,” “[t]he locus delicti must be. determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it.” Cabrales, 524 U.S. at 6-7, 118 S.Ct. 1772. In conducting this inquiry, we “must initially identify the conduct constituting the offense ... and then discern the location of the commission of the criminal acts.” United States v.

Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275, 279, 119 S.Ct. 1239, 143 L.Ed.2d 388 (1999). “Venue is proper only where the acts constituting the offense— the crime’s ‘essential conduct elements’— took place.” United States v. Tzolov, 642 F.3d 314, 318 (2d Cir.2011) (quoting Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 280, 119 S.Ct. 1239). “When a crime consists of a single, non-continuing act, the proper venue is clear: The crime is ‘committed’ in the district where the act is performed.” United States v. Ramirez, 420 F.3d 134, 139 (2d Cir.2005) (other internal quotation marks omitted).

In other cases, “where the acts constituting the crime and the nature of the crime charged implicate more than one location, the Constitution does not command a single exclusive venue.” United States v. Magassouba, 619 F.3d 202, 205 (2d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

Congress has codified the so-called “continuing offense” rule in 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), which provides in relevant part: Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another, or committed in more than one district, may be ... prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed. The Government bears the burden of proving that venue is proper.

Tzolov, 642 F.3d at 318. “[T]he venue requirement, despite its constitutional pedigree, is not an element of a crime so as to require proof beyond a reasonable doubt; rather, venue need be proved only by a preponderance of the evidence.” United States v. Rommy, 506 F.3d 108, 119 (2d Cir.2007) (emphasis and internal quotation marks omitted). The propriety of venue is a question of law that we review de novo. United States v. Drachenberg, 623 F.3d 122, 124 (2d Cir.2010).

The federal false statements statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), makes it a crime, inter alia, “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully ... [to] make[ ] any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.” 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). We have considered the issue of venue for a § 1001(

a) violation on two pri- or occasions. In United States v. Candella, 487 F.2d 1223 (2d Cir.1973), a case arising in the Southern District of New York, the defendants were charged with making false statements based on fraudulent affidavits that were submitted to a municipal branch office in Brooklyn and then conveyed to the Housing and Urban Development office in Manhattan. Id. at 1227. We held that, although the crime began in the Eastern District of New York, “it does not follow that the crime then terminated, and that what transpired in Manhattan was irrelevant for venue purposes.” Id. at 1228.

In United States v. Ramirez, 420 F.3d 134 (2d Cir.2005), we elaborated upon the reasoning of Candella, holding that, where a false statement was made in one jurisdiction and then transmitted to another, venue was proper in both jurisdictions. Id. at 143 (holding that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York because the “‘statements continued to be false and continued to be in the jurisdiction of the United States’ when they finally reached Manhattan” (quoting Candella, 487 F.2d at 1228)). B.

Venue for Count Six Vaughn contends that venue for Count Six was improper because his statements were both made and received during the IRS deposition in Nashville. For that reason, Vaughn argues, the subsequent review and analysis of his statements by IRS officials in Manhattan afforded no basis for venue in the Southern District of New York. We disagree. We begin by identifying the “essential conduct elements” of § 1001(a)(2). Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. at 280, 119 S.Ct. 1239. In United States v.

Ali, 68 F.3d 1468 (2d Cir.1995), amended on denial of reh’g, 86 F.3d 275 (2d Cir.1996), we held for the first time that materiality is a statutory element of all charges under § 1001. Ali, 68 F.3d at 1474-75; see United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 523 (2d Cir.2000).

Thus, in order to secure a conviction under § 1001(a)(2), the Government must prove that a defendant (1) knowingly and willfully, (2) made a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement, (3) in relation to a matter within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the United States, (4) with knowledge that it was false or fictitious or fraudulent. But not all statutory elements constitute “essential conduct elements” within the meaning of Rodriguez-Moreno.

In reviewing the elements of § 1001, the Supreme Court has noted that the statutory requirement that the false statement be made “in any matter within the jurisdiction ... of the United States” is “jurisdictional language [that] appears in a phrase separate from the prohibited conduct” and is simply a “predicate circumstance” of the offense. United States v. Yermian, 468 U.S. 63, 68-69, 104 S.Ct. 2936, 82 L.Ed.2d 53 (1984) (quotation marks omitted). Similarly, the mens rea requirement constitutes “a circumstance element that does not contribute to determining the locus delicti of the crime.” United States v.

Oceanpro Indus., Ltd., 674 F.3d 323, 329 (4th Cir.2012). Thus, the essential conduct prohibited by § 1001(a)(2) is the making of a materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement. In this case, the materiality requirement proves dispositive with respect to venue. “Under § 1001, a statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or be capable of influencing, the decision of the decisionmaking body to which it was addressed, or if it is capable of distracting government investigators’ attention away from a critical matter.” United States v.

Adekanbi, 675 F.3d 178, 182 (2d Cir.2012) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). Accordingly, whether Vaughn’s false statements were material turns on the tendency or capacity of those statements to influence the decisionmaking body at issue — in this case, the IRS. Proving the materiality of Vaughn’s false statements in Tennessee necessarily requires evidence that those statements were conveyed to or had an effect on the IRS investigators working in the Southern District of New York. Oceanpro, 674 F.3d at 329; see United States v.

Salinas, 373 F.3d 161, 167 (1st Cir.2004) (“When materiality is a critical component of the statutory definition, it makes perfect sense to consider the crime as continuing into the district in which the effects of the false statement are felt.”); United States v. Ringer, 300 F.3d 788, 792 (7th Cir.2002) (finding venue in the district w

[…]