grant which is subsequently stolen. Immediately following its description of this scenario, the Smith court observes that “its theft would not then be within the reach of 18 U.S.C. § 641.” Smith, 596 F.2d at 664. Unlike the scenario of an outright recipient who rightfully receives federal funds outright and has monies stolen after first obtaining possession, this case involves a situation where the government’s interest never ceased due to the erroneous nature of the disbursement. See United States v. Miller, 520 F.2d at 1210. The existence of a statutory mechanism for recovery of erroneous funds, 26 U.S.C. § 7405, underscores the continuing and strong federal interest in recovering the erroneous disbursement. See, e.g., United States v. Carr, 706 F.2d 1108, 1109-11 (11th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). But, the fundamental error in the majority’s
recognizing that taxpayers are not entitled to interest on cash bonds recognizing that in 1998 the legislature repealed a previous version of the statute and enacted two statutes in replacement recognizing that statutes and regulations concerning their issuance and replacement reveal a strong federal proprietary interest in stolen savings bonds recognizing strong public interest in maintaining confidentiality of official records concerning child abuse holding that a challenge by taxpayers and property owners to the issuance of municipal bonds was barred by a judgment entered in a prior action