States v. Hall, 801 F.2d 356, 358 (8th Cir.1986) (“In a possession offense the intent to defraud is difficult to prove when the quality of the counterfeit is poor.”). Mousli claims that his phony bills are inadequately convincing to prove intent to defraud, even if they are considered counterfeit. Other courts have inferred intent to defraud in the counterfeiting context by examining “surrounding circumstances” in cases mostly dealing with the “passing” of counterfeit bills from one person to another. Pérez, 698 F.2d at 1171 (finding the most important “surrounding circumstance” to be the fact that defendant segregated his counterfeit bills from the genuine bills in his pocket); United States v. Rice, 652 F.2d 521 (5th Cir.1981) (relying upon use of enlarged counterfeit bill to m 1966) (<HOLDING>); United States v. King, 326 F.2d 415 (6th
holding other acts evidence that was permissible to demonstrate a plan to defraud was also admissible to establish intent knowledge and absence of mistake holding that the question of guilty knowledge and especially intent to defraud may be shown by other than direct evidence holding that the statute requires actual intent to hinder delay or defraud creditors or the trustee constructive intent to defraud does not suffice holding that direct proof of intent to defraud is unnecessary and that it may be inferred from the act of the parties and from all circumstances holding that intent and knowledge can be proved by circumstantial evidence