of scienter is perfectly plausible on this record. In sum, the record supports the jury’s conclusion that Renta was a participant in a conspiracy to conduct the affairs of Banlnter through a pattern of transactions which constituted transmission and receipt of converted funds, that the transfers at issue were carried out pursuant to that agreement and succeeded because of it, and that Renta possessed the requisite scienter. Renta also asserts that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the equitable defense of in pari delicto. Under this defense, “a plaintiff who has participated in wrongdoing may not recover damages resulting from the wrongdoing.” Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of PSA, Inc. v. Edwards, 437 F.3d 1145, 1152 (11th Cir.2006) (citation omitted) (<HOLDING>). Renta argues that Baez-Figueroa, a
recognizing availability of in pari delicto doctrine as defense to registration violation but finding it inapplicable to facts of the case recognizing lulling in rico claim recognizing that in pari delicto is a defense to rico claims holding defense applicable to both types of claims recognizing defense in securities case