contention that acts relating to the Ames trust embezzlement, many of which occurred in the Southern District of New York, could not be viewed as part of the later referral-fee scheme. Having already concluded that a reasonable jury could find all these activities to be part of the single charged conspiracy against the United States, we reject defendants’ argument that overt acts in the Southern District of New York pertaining to the Ames trust do not suffice to satisfy venue on the conspiracy count. i. Tax Evasion A tax evasion charge is properly venued wherever a defendant’s attempt to evade taxes was begun, continued, or completed. See United States v. Drachenberg, 623 F.3d 122, 125 (2d Cir.2010); cf. Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492, 499, 63 S.Ct. 364, 87 L.Ed. 418 (1948) (<HOLDING>). As to Count 2, a reasonable jury could find
holding to the same effect holding that any conduct the likely effect of which would be to mislead or to conceal can be affirmative act of tax evasion holding that an individual can waive any process to which he or she has a right holding that where a defendant controlled the board of directors it is manifest then that there can be no expectation that the corporation would sue him and if it did it can hardly be said that the prosecution of the suit would be entrusted to proper hands holding that construction that neutralizes any provision of a contract should not be adopted if the contract can be construed to give effect to all provisions