shipper identifies (or addresses) the merchandise for a particular, ultimate consignee. Then the requisite fixed and persisting intent is manifest at the time of the initial shipment, and the transportation remains interstate or foreign commerce at least until the merchandise is delivered to that identified consignee. Hays Home Delivery, 1994 WL 665958, at *5 n. 6. Such exception appears to derive from and is consistent with the necessary focus on the essential character of the commerce and practical realities, suggesting that the ICC itself did not intended to dispense with a totality assessment in all cases involving two shippers. Accord Swift Textiles, 799 F.2d at 699 (“The nature of a shipment is not determined ... by when and to whom title passes”); Roberts, 844 N.W.2d at 410 (<HOLDING>). Further, contrary to Progressive’s
holding that direct proof of intent to defraud is unnecessary and that it may be inferred from the act of the parties and from all circumstances holding that fraudulent intent as required in the charge of embezzlement can be inferred from the facts proven direct evidence of such intent is not necessary holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances holding that intent is a separate element and evidence relating to intent is irrelevant to determining whether an object is a criminal instrument recognizing that the intent element is to be gleaned from all the surrounding facts and testimony and not solely from the subjective intent of the original shipper