of supporting a charge of federal money laundering. Here, 4% of the unreported gross receipts that should have been paid as tax to the Virgin Islands but were instead included in the lump sums of money which the defendants sent to Amman, Jordan, were clearly “proceeds” of the fraudulent scheme perpetuated by defendants. Specifically, the defendants’ fraudulent scheme was that of concealing certain gross receipts from the Virgin Islands government through the mailing of fraudulent tax returns in order to defraud, cheat, and deprive the government of the 4% gross receipts taxes it was owed, thus enabling the defendants to unlawfully retain such government property and profit from their scheme. See Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349, 355-56, 125 S.Ct. 1766, 161 L.Ed.2d 619 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182,
holding that canadas right to uncollected excise taxes on imported liquor is property in its hands depriving canada of that money inflicts an economic injury no less than had they embezzled the funds from the canadian treasury holding that funds held in escrow are property of the estate only to the extent of the debtors independent right to that property holding that a tax credit to liquor licensees against taxes owed to the state was an unconstitutional subsidy of the liquor industry recognizing no material difference between defrauding a government of taxes due and embezzling money from the treasury the supreme court held that unpaid tax constituted property under the wire fraud statute holding that reimbursement claims were excise taxes under lorber