check on the same day into her account at First Security Bank and kept $200 in cash, and Mr. Wis-by testified that he never received the funds and never endorsed the check. At the time that Ms. Battles made the $102,430.01 deposit, there was less than one hundred dollars in the account — specifically, the balance on May 8 was $64.45. And, according to the bank statement for that account, for the period beginning May 8 and ending May 18, there were no other deposits to the account. Therefore, a rational factfinder would have had little difficulty concluding that, when Ms. Battles wrote the $15,000 check to her mother on May 11, the debit that she effected involved fraudulently obtained funds and Ms. Battles knew that fact. See United States v. Haddad, 462 F.3d 783, 792 (7th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Dazey, 403 F.3d at 1163 (concluding that the
holding that theft by taking conviction was supported by evidence of unlawful taking rather than unlawful appropriation of funds where defendant who was given an electronic banking card encoded with the account number of another customer withdrew funds from bank account knowing that she was obtaining funds which did not belong to her and which she had no right to receive holding that to establish a money laundering offense the laundering of funds cannot occur in the same transaction through which those funds first become tainted by crime holding that a money laundering enhancement was applicable because defendant knew the funds were represented to be proceeds of a drug transaction holding that a college received federal funds where the funds were granted to its students as financial aid rather than directly to the college because the language of the section does not distinguish between direct and indirect receipt of federal funds holding that the evidence of  1957 money laundering was sufficient where the government proved aggregate withdrawals of far more than 10000 above the amount of clean funds available the vast majority of funds transferred to the defendants business account from the food stamp reimbursements were not supported by evidence of legitimate food sales