that if the person induced to travel is acting as an agent for the person defrauded, § 2314 is violated. We are persuaded by the government’s argument. Thomas concedes that the church and Pastor Holmes are victims of his scheme, as both lost money in his fraudulent investment program. However, an organization such as the church may act only through its employees and agents, Suez Equity Investors, L.P. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, 250 F.3d 87, 101 (2d Cir.2001), and Mukes went to New York on behalf of the church. The Seventh and Ninth Circuits have held that when the interstate traveler is an agent of the “person” defrauded, whether the “person” is an entity or an individual, the victim has traveled for purposes of § 2314. United States v. Steffen, 251 F.3d 1273, 1276 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. O’Connor, 874 F.2d 483, 488
holding that the identity of a defrauded person under 18 usc  2814 is irrelevant and did not materially alter the complex of facts holding that attorneys claim for professional services against person sui juris or against property of such person must rest upon contract of employment express or implied made with person sought to be charged or with his agent holding that the person who travels as an agent of person defrauded is a victim holding that a person is seized when a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave holding that burglary may qualify as offense against person if as committed it is in fact a crime against a person