in the alleged scheme; the use of policies purportedly issued by Lloyd’s, which had representatives in New York; the placement of telephone calls or transmission of facsimiles into New York in furtherance of the scheme; and an attempt to conceal evidence from a grand jury in New York. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18). Third, the Government has represented that it will be able to prove at trial additional facts not specifically asserted in the indictment that also support the conclusion that venue is proper in this District. (See Gov’t Mem. at 9-11). Finally, in the context of this case, all three crimes alleged are continuing offenses that involved conduct in New York and elsewhere. Wire fraud clearly is a continuing offense. See, e.g., United States v. Kim, 246 F.3d at 192 (<HOLDING>). The crime of engaging in the insurance
holding that the southern district of new york had significant transportation advantages over the southern district of indiana particularly in terms of daily flights to and from the forum holding that venue was not proper in the southern district of new york where the plaintiff resided because the allegedly erroneous advice to file a case in new york that could result in a finding of civil contempt against the plaintiff originated from the defendants office in california holding that telephone calls and telexes to and from southern district of new york were sufficient to support venue for wire fraud even though defendant did not personally send them holding that two meet ings in new york and numerous telephone calls and correspondence to new york were not sufficient to confer jurisdiction holding that judge in southern district of new york could authorize wiretap in maryland