that SECO’s assets were not dissipated in lieu of those of its fellow customers. Furthermore, the Receiver has not yet had the opportunity to complete his investigation into Credit Bancorp’s finances, and it is not altogether clear how any distribution of assets will be handled. Depending upon how this case proceeds, Credit Bancorp may well be brought into bankruptcy and its assets liquidated and distributed by a bankruptcy court. A disgorgement order may also be proposed by the SEC, subject to review by this Court. The only thing certain at this point is uncertainty. Uncertain, for example, are the various Credit Bancorp customers’ respective entitlements to Credit Bancorp’s assets, the priority of their interests in Credit Bancorp’s assets WL 269982, at *2-3 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 11, 1991) (<HOLDING>). Other courts however, based upon the facts
holding that uncharged amounts of drugs may be included as relevant conduct even if the defendant never actually possessed or distributed the drugs recognizing that a mailing must be sufficiently related to the fraudulent scheme to support a charge of mail fraud holding that money seized from a bank account must be traceable to illegal activity in order to be subject to forfeiture even if account previously contained proceeds of illegal activity holding that although fraudulent scheme must be reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension the negligence of the victim in failing to discover a fraudulent scheme is not a defense to criminal conduct holding that proceeds directly traceable to stock invested with defendants must be distributed to original investors rather than distributed pro rata among all investors affected by fraudulent scheme