apply to what the Supreme Court has termed "public welfare” or "regulatory” offenses. As we discuss below, § 209(a) is not such an offense. See infra note 15. 6 . Similarly, to conclude that a payment was received "as compensation for” something, one must determine the intent of the recipient. 7 . Accord OLC, Application of 18 U.S.C. § 209 to Employee-Inventors Who Receive Outside Royalty Payments (Sept. 7, 2000), 2000 WL 33952879, at *3 (concluding that § 209 does not bar government employee-inventors from receiving outside royalties because there is "no intentional, direct link between an employee-inventor's government services and the licensing of patent rights” (emphasis added)); see also 41 Op. Att’y Gen. 217, 217, 220-21 (1955) (concluding that "whe , 1201 n. 65 (11th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432, 454 (5th
holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error holding determination of good faith renders finding of negligence immaterial holding that  2314 does not require specific intent to defraud a certain person a general intent to defraud any person who might fall victim to the schemers plan is sufficient holding that actual intent to defraud is not necessary to finding of constructive fraud holding that a finding of specific intent to defraud necessarily excludes a finding of good faith